Downloaded 13 times
![Example One: Discussing which topics to present
about their country to an audience of young people
Student A: [continuing after 64 seconds]...and
young people interested festivals and
celebrations so I think it can be this.
[Slight pause] What do you think?
Student B: I am agree with you. I think festivals
and celebrations important. Young
people like. And food. I think food is
good. [continues for 25 seconds]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-150522000210-lva1-app6891/85/2-4-assessing-spoken-language-2-14-320.jpg)
![Example Two: Discussing where to take
their fellow students on holiday
Student B: For me, I’d take the weekend by the sea.
Student C: So you, er, so you will take the weekend
by the sea.
Student B: [by the sea.]
Student B: And I think lots of people agree with me.
Student C: Well, yeah. This summertime will be
Student B: [Yeah.]
Student C: nice but because the UK doesn’t have nice
beaches or days
Student B: = I don’t mean in the UK.
Student C: Ah! You want to go to Spain?
Student B: = Anywhere!](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-150522000210-lva1-app6891/85/2-4-assessing-spoken-language-2-15-320.jpg)
![CEFR – Spoken Interaction
(Self Assessment p.26-27)
• B2
• “Interact with a degree of fluency and
spontaneity...take an active part in
discussion...”
• C1
• “Express [him/herself] fluently and
spontaneously without too much searching for
expressions...relate contribution...skilfully to
those of other speakers”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-150522000210-lva1-app6891/85/2-4-assessing-spoken-language-2-19-320.jpg)
![Teacher Comments
• “I could have assigned more time to speaking/oral skills.”
• “More natural turn-taking, hedging, playing for time,
backchannelling etc needs to be introduced in the
classroom.”
• “Sts from L1 backgrounds are clearly not taught this kind
of authentic discourse…”
Student comments
• “confidence and feeling easy/free to talk is very
important to me”
• “I’ll really appreciate…an opportunity which I can have a
one by one chat time with my tutor each week.”
• “having a partner from [different country] didn’t make
the test easier”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2-150522000210-lva1-app6891/85/2-4-assessing-spoken-language-2-23-320.jpg)
More Related Content
2.4 assessing spoken language 2
- 1. Testing & Assessment* DifferentTypes of Speaking Test * The most spectacular, empowering, life-affirming and ultimately satisfying module ever. Also prone to exaggeration and outright lies. So we agree! I’m king forever and we put Ralph to the sword!
- 2. During this sessionyou will… • Get experience of doing two types of speaking test; • Consider a number of different speaking tests and their comparative merits and disadvantages; • Have reverse engineered a speaking test to determine what it aimed to assess; • Have shed between 60,000 – 80,000 skin cells (Please clean up after yourselves)
- 3. Part 2 • Describesomething you own which is very important to you. You should say: • Where you got it from • How long you have had it • What you use it for • And explain why it is important to you.
- 4. Doing a SpeakingTest • A local school is going to introduce a new competitive sport. Discuss all the options and then decide which two sports from the list below you think are best for the school. Table tennis Canoeing Rugby Cycling Hockey Gymnastics Crocodile wrestling Catch the javelin
- 5. Basic Types ofSpeaking Test (Brown, 2004) • Imitative – Parroting word or phrase e.g. minimal pairs • Intensive – Short utterances to demonstrate grammatical, phrasal, lexical or phonological ability • Responsive – Short and limited conversation (stimulus – response) • Interactive – Transactional & interactional speaking • Extensive – Long turns (e.g. speeches, presentations, monologues etc)
- 6. Different Oral Examinations •Look at the materials from different speaking tests – What types of speaking does the test contain? – What are the stages of the examination? – What do you think are the criteria candidates are marked on? • What do you think are – the merits of each examination? – Any problems that candidates or examiners might have with the test?
- 7. TASK: Stages ofan interactive speaking test • Watch the video (C2 – CPE examination) • What stages does the interview go through? • What is the purpose of each stage? • What is the role of the interlocutor?
- 8. Testing individually vsin pairs • Which examinations do their oral components one-to-one (i.e. Examiner to one candidate) • Which examinations have two candidates tested at the same time (i.e. One interlocutor, one assessor, two candidates) • What are some of the advantages and drawbacks of each method?
- 9. Testing in Pairs Advantages(Norton, 2000) • Candidates are more relaxed • Candidates use each other as a resource • More varied patterns of interaction possible • Interaction in test = positive washback on classroom • Interactive tests – consistent with communicative classroom Drawbacks (Foot, 1999) • Candidates may not perform better • ‘catching’ anxiety off a nervous partner • Interacting with a stranger • Lack of data of how factors (e.g. Age, language ability, L1 etc impact on performance)
- 10. Testing in Pairs/Groups •Quick and efficient (Bonk & Ockey, 2003) • Less burden on examiners (Folland & Robertson, 1976) • More consistent test administration (Ockey, 2001) • Elicits richer samples (French, 2003) • Symmetrical contribution to the interaction (Van Lier, 1989) • Positive student perception (Fulcher, 1996; Ockey, 2001) • Positive washback on classroom (Hilsdon, 1995) • Three as the optimum number (Nakatsuhara, Forthcoming)
- 11. The Stages ofan Interactive Oral Test (Canale (1984)) • Warm up • Level check – Pre-planned questions – Elicit an appropriate range of grammatical categories, discourse structures, vocabulary use or socio-linguistic factors) • Probe – Discover the widest extent of candidate’s abilities, • Wind-down
- 12. (Brown 2004) Successful OralTests require… • Clearly specified administrative procedures (practicality) • Questions and probes based on the purpose of the assessment (validity) • Eliciting sufficient (in terms of quantity and quality) oral production from the candidate (validity & reliability) • Consistent, workable scoring (reliability)
- 13. Situation • You arepreparing a speaking examination for students exiting a university preparation programme. Students should exit at B2 (Roughly IELTS 6.5/Band A of FCE) • Work in your group and develop an overview of the speaking test you would use to assess these learners.
- 14. Example One: Discussingwhich topics to present about their country to an audience of young people Student A: [continuing after 64 seconds]...and young people interested festivals and celebrations so I think it can be this. [Slight pause] What do you think? Student B: I am agree with you. I think festivals and celebrations important. Young people like. And food. I think food is good. [continues for 25 seconds]
- 15. Example Two: Discussingwhere to take their fellow students on holiday Student B: For me, I’d take the weekend by the sea. Student C: So you, er, so you will take the weekend by the sea. Student B: [by the sea.] Student B: And I think lots of people agree with me. Student C: Well, yeah. This summertime will be Student B: [Yeah.] Student C: nice but because the UK doesn’t have nice beaches or days Student B: = I don’t mean in the UK. Student C: Ah! You want to go to Spain? Student B: = Anywhere!
- 16. Interaction • Are studentsturn-taking or taking turns? (Morris-Adams, 2005) • Turn-taking “How...people know when to speak in conversations so they don’t all talk at the same time.” (Dornyei and Thurell, 1994) • Backchannelling • Conversation strategies (e.g. ‘well’ for thinking time, floor holding strategies) • Discourse management
- 17. The Tests • B2 •Interlocutor & assessor • 2 candidates – Stage 1: Individual ‘warm- up’ questions to candidates (3 mins) – Stage 2: Task. Cs given two question prompts on same topic to discuss together (4 mins) – Stage 3: 3-way discussion – follow up questions based on topic from stage 2 (5 mins) • C1 • Interlocutor & assessor • 2 Candidates – Stage 1: Individual ‘warm- up’ questions to candidates (4 mins) – Stage 2: Task. Cs given a problem & five options to discuss (5 mins) – Stage 3: 3-way discussion – follow up questions based on topic from stage 2 (5 mins)
- 18. Criteria for LevelsB2 and C1 • Grammar • Vocabulary • Pronunciation • Discourse Management • Interactive Ability
- 19. CEFR – SpokenInteraction (Self Assessment p.26-27) • B2 • “Interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity...take an active part in discussion...” • C1 • “Express [him/herself] fluently and spontaneously without too much searching for expressions...relate contribution...skilfully to those of other speakers”
- 20. Feedback • 66% ofteachers rated speaking as either 3rd or 4th out of the 4 skills for time spent on in class • 75% of students ranked speaking as being 1st or 2nd out of the 4 skills for time spent on in class • Teachers tended to feel students needed most help with pronunciation, grammar , lexis • Learners ranked backchannelling, discourse management and lexis highest • Teachers tended to be sceptical about whether students listened to each other / responded to each other in class • 75% of learners felt the did not respond to what each other said in class
- 21. Teachers felt… • thetypes of interaction in the test overlapped with types of interaction in the classroom • Part 2 tasks encouraged genuine interaction & turntaking • Uncertain whether students had actually listened & responded to each other in the tests • Students had used a range of communicative strategies Students felt... • they had listened and responded to each other in the test (100%) • Uncertain as to whether they had negotiated meaning in the test (50%) • They could see a connection btw the test and the classroom activities they did (100%)
- 22. Issues • Teachers &students see connection btw interactive speaking skills & the test • Teachers know their students use some conversation strategies (but this is limited?) • Teachers don’t feel their learners are genuinely interacting and therefore don’t feel learners listen or respond to each other • Learners feel that they listen to each other in class but that they don’t necessarily respond or negotiate meaning • Students feel that they do listen & respond in test but that they aren’t necessarily negotiating meaning
- 23. Teacher Comments • “Icould have assigned more time to speaking/oral skills.” • “More natural turn-taking, hedging, playing for time, backchannelling etc needs to be introduced in the classroom.” • “Sts from L1 backgrounds are clearly not taught this kind of authentic discourse…” Student comments • “confidence and feeling easy/free to talk is very important to me” • “I’ll really appreciate…an opportunity which I can have a one by one chat time with my tutor each week.” • “having a partner from [different country] didn’t make the test easier”
- 24. • “The languageclassroom does not offer too many opportunities for students to develop their awareness of turn-taking or to practice turn-taking skills” (Dorneyei and Thurell, 1994)
- 25. Proposed Ways ofFostering Interaction • Awareness raising (Jones, 2009) – authentic models – Analysis of transcript & elicit key features (e.g. backchannelling, latching etc) • Ensure that there is a goal to the speaking task at B2 • Make explicit to learners the marking criteria for the test – Interaction & discourse management – Emphasising the connection with classroom activities
- 26. • Task BasedLearning – Clear outcome providing purpose for learner interaction – Pre-task preparation (awareness raising tasks) – Reporting back (fb from tutor or observer)
- 27. A Validity Problemswith Controlled Interactive Tests • Valdman (1988) • forces test-takers into a closed system – Interlocutor has full control – Candidates unable to nominate topics, switch formality levels or display full range of stylistic maneuver • “Therefore, this type of test can only inform us how learners deal with an artificial social imposition”
- 28. Testing Extensive Speaking •Oral Presentations • Cued-picture story-telling • Retelling a story • Translation of extended prose TASK • What do you think are the merits of each of these task types? What/how would you go about assessing each?
- 29. References Brown, H.,D., 2004,,Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practice, New York:Longman Clifton, J., 2006, Facilitator Talk, ELT Journal, 60/2 Council of Europe, 2001, Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment, Cambridge: CUP Dornyei and Thurell, 1994, Teaching conversational skills intensively: course content and rationale, ELT Journal 48/1 Oxford: OUP Jones, C., 2007, Teaching Spoken Grammar: Is noticing the best option?, Modern English Techer 16/4 Morris-Adams, M. 2005, Talking in turn or turn-taking?, Conference paper at TESOL Spain 2005 Norton, J., 2005, The paired format in the Cambridge speaking tests, ELT Journal, 59/4 Nunn, R., Designing rating scales for small-group interaction, ELT Journal 54/2 Oxford: OUP H. Sacks, E.A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson , A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50 (1974), pp. 696–735 Van Lier, L., 1988, The Classroom and the Language Learner, London: Longman
- 30. Homework • Reading: Waller,2009, Are you listening to me: Interaction in the Lancashire Examinations, in Recent Approaches to Teaching and Assessing Speaking, Mader, J. & Urkun, Z. (eds), IATEFL Testing and Evaluation SiG
Editor's Notes
- #10 Why interactive
- #15 Compare and contrast the two extracts. Handout.
- #16 Issue – are students turn taking or taking turns. Real interaction or lip service (as in the attempt of student 1 in the first dialogue).
- #17 Backchannelling Van Lier 1988 “typically demonstrations of approval, attention and understanding” (uhu, yeah) Nunn, 2000 – skills of participation “learners must obtain turn, maintain contributions, defend their floor rights, nominate other speakers, adjust to the contributions of other participants, improvise, negotiate meaning, repair misunderstandings, defend opinions and support other participants.”
- #20 Handout – CEFR descriptions
- #22 Very interesting contrasting perceptions btw teachers and learners
- #23 Underlying methodology is a communicative approach, but difficulties apparent. Especially problematic as these students are in the UK and failure to interact will exclude them from participating with native speakers or with speakers from other cultures.
- #25 IRF and mediation through the teacher as the often predominant pattern Clifton (2006) on how IRF disempowers students – dependent up on conditions set up by teacher so topic is in teacher’s hands, response is open to evalution by T (and T alone) so other students and student themselves don’t have to assess adequacy of response, sts do not get practice of nominating next speaker so T controls what is said to whom and when
- #26 Why not use ‘successful’ candidate scripts (with permission of course) as models for learners to aspire to along with native speaker models? Nunn, 2000 – “Practice in the classroom must in any case never involve rehearsal of assessed task activities’ (overtraining) – basic familiarity is sufficient. Sts should see the test as an assessment of real-life interaction similar to that which they get in the classroom.
- #27 Especially given the very short amount of time available (2 hours contact per week) and the fact that the learners are supposed to have a certain level of English already.