SPEAKING TESTS IN THE CONTEXT OF LANGUAGE LEARNING

SPEAKING TESTS IN THE CONTEXT OF LANGUAGE LEARNING

WHY SPEAKING? • Skills have been a central focus in language teaching and there have been attempts to identify the microskills underlying the use of the four macroskills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking as a basis for syllabus design. (Richards, 2003, p. 160)

ADVANTAGES • Skills-based syllabuses have the advantage of focusing on performance in relation to specific tasks, and therefore provide a practical framework for designing courses and teaching materials. (Richards, 2003, p. 161)

POSSIBLE DISADVANTAGES • Skills-based syllabuses have been criticized on the following grounds: -There is no serious basis for determining skills. -They focus on discrete aspects of performance rather than on developing more global and integrated communicative skills. -(Richards, 2003, p. 161)

SPEAKING TEST Independent Task - 2 Speakers, 2 Questions

SPEAKING TEST What are the benefits of studying this course? Give examples to support your answer. (You have 15 seconds to prepare).

SPEAKING TEST • What steps would you take to improve this course? Provide details to support your answer. (You have 15 seconds to prepare).

EVALUATION • What criteria would you use to rate their speech?

ARTICLE FOR ANALYSIS • Ockey, G. , Koyama, K. , Setoguchi, E. , & Sun, A. (2015). The extent to which TOEFL i. BT speaking scores are associated with performance on oral language tasks and oral ability components for Japanese university students. Language Testing, 32(1), 39 -62.

OVERVIEW • Purpose was to discover how TOEFL speaking scores correlate with overall English speaking ability • Japanese university students – English majors in a Japanese university (sample size = 226) • TOEFL speaking scores are good overall indicators of academic oral ability, especially pronunciation, fluency and vocabulary/grammar

METHOD • Participants were enrolled in the English department of a Japanese university specializing in foreign language study • Students were from various regions of Japan (226 in total), 169 indicated they hoped to study abroad where English is the primary language • Test-takers have plenty of formal and informal exposure to English, most likely an ideal sample for this study

MATERIALS/ PROCEDURE • 3 university oral tasks • Group oral discussion • Picture and graph description • Oral presentation Purpose of these oral tasks is to provide an objective measure of academic oral proficiency Many institutions now rely on their own testing instruments

NEXT STEP • Administer TOEFL speaking test (students were compensated for taking this portion of the test) • To ensure high ethical standards, all students were allowed to opt out of this portion of the test (none chose to do so)

RATING CRITERIA • Pronunciation • Fluency • Lexis/grammar • Presentation delivery skill • Descriptive Skill (picture and graph description) • Question answering (Oral presentation) • Interactional competence: participation and smoothness of interaction, ability to sustain a discussion based on an assigned topic

RESULTS • Score reliability was estimated using the Cronbach Alpha formula. • Preparation was logged prior to TOEFL test, showing minimal impact on test results. • Scores on interactional competence for group oral discussion and the picture and graph description tasks were “substantially less related to TOEFL i. BT scores than pronunciation, fluency, and vocabulary/grammar”. • Similar results for oral presentation task

DISCUSSION • Scores on the TOEFL speaking section may be more associated with unprepared than prepared tasks • Aim of TOEFL i. BT is to “assess i. BT oral ability to communicate immediately. ” • “The findings suggest that TOEFL i. BT speaking scores measure interactional competence, descriptive skill, and presentation delivery skill to a lesser extent than they do the oral ability components of pronunciation, fluency, and vocabulary/grammar common to the three oral ability tasks. ” (Ockey, G. , Koyama, K. , Setoguchi, E. , & Sun, A. , 2015)

INTEGRATED SPEAKING TASK • What are the main points or ideas of this video? • What are the main

3 RD PARTY LANGUAGE TESTS – IMPLICATIONS FOR IMMIGRATION • What third-party language tests will CIC accept as proof I have adequate knowledge of English or French when I apply for citizenship? • A third-party test is a test done by an organization that is not CIC. • We will accept third-party test results as proof of your language ability if it is from one of the following organizations: • CELPIP General (Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program General test) • CELPIP General-LS - a two-skills (listening and speaking) version of the CELPIP General test • IELTS - General training (International English Language Testing System) • Test d'Évaluation de Français (TEF) (in French) • Test d'Évaluation de Français (TEFAQ) (in French) or TEF pour la naturalisation – a two-skills (listening and speaking) version of the TEF • http: //www. cic. gc. ca/english/helpcentre/answer. asp? q=572&t=5

REFERENCES • Bachman, L. F. , & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language Assessment in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Bridgeman, B. , Powers, D. , Stone, E. , & Mollaun, P. (2012). TOEFL i. BT speaking test scores as indicators of oral communicative language proficiency. Language Testing, 29, 91– 108. • Hill, K. , & Sabet, M. (2009). Dynamic speaking assessments. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, 43, 537 -545. • Ockey, G. , Koyama, K. , Setoguchi, E. , & Sun, A. (2015). The extent to which TOEFL i. BT speaking scores are associated with performance on oral language tasks and oral ability components for Japanese university students. Language Testing, 32(1), 39 -62.

YOUTUBE VIDEOS Dr Richards – Communicative Language Teaching https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=Sw. Mii_Yt. EOw Cambridge TV – Measurement https: //www. youtube. com/channel/UCn. Xq. Rankql. C 47 qz. Xc. YMaz. KA

LINKS • Main article http: //journals 1. scholarsportal. info. proxy. bib. uottawa. ca/pdf/02 655322/v 32 i 0001/39_tetwtiacfjus. xml