As slippery as an eel? Assessing speaking and writing Part One Ülle Türk University of Tartu Estonian Defence Forces 23rd CSW, Tampere, 27-29 March 2009.

As slippery as an eel?

Assessing speaking and writing Part One

Ülle TürkUniversity of Tartu

Estonian Defence Forces

23rd CSW, Tampere, 27-29 March 2009

2

Testing writing? Fill in the gaps with suitable words so that the text is true

for you. Re-write the text in the future tense. Fill in the form with the information given in the box. Read the letter and write an answer. Write an essay on the topic “Why study English?” Study the pictures, put them in the order you think best

and write the story. Read the text and write a short summary of it. You bought a new dictionary yesterday, but found later

that several pages were missing. Write a letter to the manager of the shop informing him of the problem and telling him what you want him to do about it.

Read the basic facts about Australian history and then write a short report.

3

Questions

What is it exactly that we assess when we say we assess students’ speaking and writing skills?

How do we arrive at a common understanding of what is ‘good’ writing, what is a ‘good’ oral presentation or what constitutes ‘good’ spoken or written communication?

4

Terms

Assessment Formal informal Continuous fixed-point Formative summative

Testing Achievement Proficiency Diagnostic Placement High-stakes low-stakes

5

Assessment/ test quality

Validity Reliability

Authenticity Washback Practicality

6

Validity: definitions

A good test needs to be valid. = It must test what it is meant to test.

an integrated evaluative judgement of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and actions based on test scores.

S. A. Messick (“Validity” in R. L. Linn (ed.) Educational Measurement. 1989, p. 13)

7

Validity

Does the test match the curriculum, or its specifications?

Is the test based adequately on a relevant and acceptable theory?

Does the test yield results similar to those from a test known to be valid for the same audience and purpose?

Does the test predict a learner’s future achievements?

8

Validity

Content validity Construct validity Criterion-related validity Predictive validity

Construct validity is indeed the unifying concept that integrates criterion and content considerations into a common framework for testing rational hypotheses about theoretically relevant relationships.

Messick, S. A. “Test validity and the ethics of assessment.” American Psychologist 35, 1980, p. 1015

9

Threats to test validity

construct irrelevant variance construct under-representation

10

Factors affecting validity

Lack of specifications Lack of training of item/ test writers Lack of / unclear criteria for marking Lack of piloting/ pre-testing Lack of detailed analysis of items/ tasks Lack of feedback to candidates and

teachers

11

Communicative competence 1

Canale & Swain (1980), Bachman (1990): language knowledge types Linguistic knowledge Discourse knowledge Sociolinguistic knowledge

12

Grabe & Kaplan (1996): Model ofWriting

Components of language knowledge relevant to writing linguistic knowledge: written code,

morphology, vocabulary, syntax discourse knowledge: cohesion, structure,

genre sociolinguistic knowledge: functional uses of

writing, register, situational parameters Influential in teaching and testing of

writing (e.g., Weigle, 2002)

13

Communicative competence 2

Bachman & Palmer (1996): communicative language ability Language knowledge Strategic competence

14

Douglas (2000): Specific Purpose Language Ability Language knowledge

grammatical knowledge textual knowledge

rhetorical organization cohesion

functional knowledge sociolinguistic knowledge

Strategic competence assessment goal setting planning control of execution

Background knowledge discourse domain

15

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (2001)

General competences Communicative language

competences

16

General competences

Declarative knowledge

Skills and know-how

‘Existential’ competence

Ability to learn

knowledge of the world

practical skills (social, living, vocational/ professional, leisure skills)

attitudes language and communicative awareness

motivationsociocultural knowledge

valuesbeliefscognitive styles

general phonetic awareness and skills

intercultural awareness

intercultural skills

personality factors

study skillsheuristic skills

17

Communicative language competences

Linguistic competences

Sociolinguistic competences

Pragmatic competences

lexical competence

linguistic markers of social relations

discourse competence

grammatical competence

politeness conventions functional competence

semantic competence

expressions of folk wisdom

phonological competence

register differences

orthographic competence

dialect and accent

orthoepic competence

18

Communicative language activities and strategies

productive activities and strategies receptive activities and strategies interactive activities and strategies mediating activities and strategies non-verbal communication

practical actions paralinguistics paratextual features

19

Oral production

public address (information, instructions, etc.) addressing audiences (speeches at public

meetings, university lectures, sermons, entertainment, sports commentaries, sales presentations, etc.) reading a written text aloud speaking from notes, or from a written text, or from

visual aids acting out a rehearsed role speaking spontaneously singing

20

Spoken interaction

transactions; casual conversation; informal discussion; formal discussion, debate; interview, negotiation; co-planning; practical goal-oriented co-operation.

21

Oral mediation

simultaneous interpretation (conferences, meetings, formal speeches, etc.)

consecutive interpretation (speeches of welcome, guided tours, etc.)

informal interpretation: of foreign visitors in own country of native speakers when abroad in social and transactional situations for

friends family, clients, foreign guests, etc. of signs, menus, notices, etc.

22

CEFR levels

The Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe 2001) defines communicative proficiency

At six levels, arranged in three bands

A1 A2

B1 B2

C1 C2

in relation to six skills: listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, written interaction, written production

in the form of “can do” statements

23

Getting to know the levels

The self-assessment grid is not enough

More specific scales: CEFR Ch 4: descriptors of communicative

activities

CEFR Ch 5: descriptors of linguistic competence

The ELP (European Language Portfolio) Manual: Relating Language Examinations to

the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR)

24

I can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. I can enter unprepared into conversation on topics that are familiar, of personal interest or pertinent to everyday life (e.g. family, hobbies, work, travel and current events).

Self-assessment grid (CEFR and standard adult passport)

25

CercleS ELP: goal-setting and self-assessment checklistsLevel B1 My

next goal

* * * * * *

I can readily handle conversations on most topics that are familiar or of personal interest, with generally appropriate use of register

I can sustain an extended conversation or discussion but may sometimes need a little help in communicating my thoughts I can take part in routine formal discussion on familiar subjects in my academic or professional field if it is conducted in clearly articulated speech in standard dialect

I can exchange, check and confirm factual information on familiar routine and non-routine matters within my field with some confidence

I can express and respond to feelings and attitudes (e.g., surprise, happiness, sadness, interest, uncertainty, indifference)

I can agree and disagree politely, exchange personal opinions, negotite decisions and ideas

I can express my thoughts about abstract or cultural topics such as music or films, and give brief comments on the views of others

I can explain why something is a problem, discuss what to do next, compare and contrast alternatives

I can obtain detailed information, messages, instructions and explanations, and can ask for and follow detailed directions I can handle most practical tasks in everyday situations (e.g., making telephone enquiries, asking for a refund, negotiating purchase)

I can provide concrete information required in an interview/ consultation (e.g., describe symptoms to a doctor), but with limited precision

I can take some initiatives in an interview/ consultation (e.g., bring up a new subject) but am very dependent on the interviewer to provide support

26

Questions to ask

What competences should my students have in Spoken interaction Spoken production Written interaction Written production

What tasks should they be able to perform to demonstrate their mastery of the competences?

How well should they be able to perform them?

27

Reliability

A test needs to be reliable. = It must produce consistent results at different times.

NB! A test that is not reliable cannot, by definition, be valid.

28

Reliability

If I take the test again tomorrow, will I get the same result?

If I take a different version of the test, will I get the same result?

If the test had had different items, would I have got the same result?

Do all markers agree on the mark I got? If the same marker marks my test paper

again tomorrow, will I get the same result?

29

Factors affecting reliability

Poor administration conditions – noise, lighting, cheating

Lack of information beforehand Lack of specifications Lack of marker training Lack of standardisation Lack of monitoring

30

References

Bachman, Lyle F. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bachman, Lyle F. and Palmer, Adrian (1996) Language Testing in Practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Cushing Weigle, Sara (2002) Assessing Writing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Douglas, Dan (2000) Assessing Languages for Specific Purposes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.