Oral Testing of Beginning Language Students at Large Universities: Is It Worth the Trouble?

Harlow, Linda L.; Caminero, Rosario

doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1990.tb00414.x

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Anchored nine-point scales were used for the ratings, one indicating the lowest performance level and nine the educated native speaker. Each of the raters was requested to 1) provide a holistic score reflecting his or her overall impression of the L2 oral ability level of each of the 18 speech samples; and 2) provide ratings for each speech sample on specific unidimensional scales typically used in L2 oral assessment (e.g., Albrechtsen, Henriksen and Faerch, 1980;Canale and Swain, 1980;Canale, 1983;Shohamy, 1983;Brown et al, 1984;ACTFL, 1986;Fayer and Krasinski, 1987;Underhill, 1987;Bachman, 1990;Harlow and Caminero, 1990). These unidimensional scales included intelligibility, linguistic and personality variables.…”

Section: Ratersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deriving oral assessment scales across different tests and rater groups

Chalhoub‐Deville

1995

Language Testing

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to derive the criteria/dimensions underlying learners' L2 oral ability scores across three tests: an oral interview, a narration and a read-aloud. A stimulus tape of 18 speech samples was presented to three native speaker rater groups for evaluation. The rater groups included teachers of Arabic as a foreign language in the USA, nonteaching Arabs residing in the USA for at least one year and nonteaching Arabs living in their home country (Lebanon). Each of the raters provided a holistic score for every speech sample. Holistic scores were analysed using the INDSCAL multidimensional scaling model. Results showed that the nonmetric three-dimensional solution provided a good fit to the data. Both regression and speech sample analyses were employed to identify those dimensions. Additionally, subject weights indicated that the three rater groups were emphasizing the three dimensions differentially, thus demonstrating that native speaker groups with varied backgrounds perceive the L2 oral construct differently. The study contends that researchers might need to reconsider employing generic component scales. A research approach that derives scales empirically according to the given tests and audiences, and according to the purpose of assessment, is recommended. Finally, replicating this study using other languages, L2 oral ability levels, tests and rater groups is suggested. I Theoretical background L2 oral testing increasingly calls for more performance-based tests. Performance-based tests require students to produce complex responses integrating various skills and knowledge and to apply their target language skills to life-like situations. Such tests typically employ more than one test method and call for human raters' judgement. Consequently, these two factors, the test method and the rater, have become integral components of performance-based tests that influence test scores.

show abstract

Section: Ratersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deriving oral assessment scales across different tests and rater groups

Chalhoub‐Deville

1995

Language Testing

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of these scales, such as grammar and confidence, were common across all three tasks and some were task-specific, such as temporal shift in the narration and melodizing the script in the read-aloud. I based these specific scales on those usually employed by researchers when assessing L2 oral proficiency (e.g., ACTFL, 1982;Albrechtsen, Henriksen, & Faerch, 1980;Bachman, 1990;Brown, Anderson, Shillcock, &Yule, 1984;Canale, 1983;Canale & Swain, 1980;Fayer & Krasinski, 1987;Harlow & Caminero, 1990;Underhill, 1987). I presented the rating instrument scales to several Arabic language and content experts, and t o naive individuals, who were asked to comment on the scales' comprehensibility t o Arab raters and their adequacy t o assess students' performance on the three tasks.…”

Section: Rating Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Contextualized Approach to Describing Oral Language Proficiency

Chalhoub‐Deville

1995

Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although both raters and elicitation tasks are principal factors influencing the study of learners' second language L2) oral proficiency, the effect of each has always been investigated separately; consequently, any possible relationship between them remains unexplored. In investigating the L2 oral proficiency construct, the present study incorporated a variety of tasks and diverse rater groups. The tasks encompassed an interview, a narration, and a read‐aloud. The rater groups, all NSs of Arabic, included 15 teachers in the US, 3 nonteaching raters residing in the US, and 36 nonteaching raters living in Lebanon. Using multidimensional scaling analyses, I derived dimensions underlying raters' holistic ratings of 6 learners' L2 oral proficiency on each of the three tasks. In addition, I specified the salience of the derived dimensions for each of the three rater groups. The results show that the nature of the L2 oral construct is not constant. Different weighted dimensions emerged when investigating the various tasks and rater groups. I concluded that proficiency researchers should not employ generic dimensions; dimensions should be empirically derived according to the specific elicitation task and audience.

show abstract

“…To foreign language educators in the United States, the decade of the 1980s was known for its emphasis on teaching for proficiency, particularly oral proficiency (Harlow & Caminero, 1990). As Harlow and Caminero point out, several factors contributed to this emphasis on oral skills, not the least of which was the report of the President's Commission on Foreign Languages and International Studies entitled Strength through wisdom: A critique of U.S. capability, which appeared in 1979.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, even though many foreign-and second-language teachers stress oral communication in their teaching, they are not being Testing Oral Language Skills via the Computer "pedagogically fair" because they do not test their students' speaking skills and are actually "sending the wrong message to their students" (Gonzalez Pino, 1989). Good pedagogy dictates that if we stress oral skills in teaching, we must also test them: "If we pay lip service to the importance of oral performance, then we must evaluate that oral proficiency in some visible way" (Harlow & Caminero, 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing Oral Language Skills via the Computer

Larson¹

2013

CALICO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although most language teachers today stress the development of oral skills in their teaching, it is very difficult for them to find time to assess these skills. This article discusses the importance of testing language students' oral skills and describes computer software that has been developed to assist in this important task. Information about various techniques that can be used to score oral achievement test performance is also presented.

show abstract

Oral Testing of Beginning Language Students at Large Universities: Is It Worth the Trouble?

Cited by 7 publications

References 6 publications

Deriving oral assessment scales across different tests and rater groups

Deriving oral assessment scales across different tests and rater groups

A Contextualized Approach to Describing Oral Language Proficiency

Testing Oral Language Skills via the Computer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About