Abstract
This chapter presents the report of a piece of action research on developing a classroom-based assessment instrument for a speaking module in an EFL context. The instrument was designed for formative assessment for a group of student teachers studying in an in-service ELT course in Iran. The study was designed to address the problems of the absence of an assessment instrument and formative assessment in an oral reproduction module. The chapter illustrates the procedure of developing an instrument and implementing it as a formative assessment tool to promote learning through teacher, self and peer assessment feedback. The chapter aims at shedding some light on the requirements and components of a classroom-based assessment instrument. It also demonstrates how the use of the instrument in the module for the learning purpose benefited the participants both as learners and teachers. The chapter aims at raising the awareness of novice teachers and test developers on the basic considerations and challenges of developing an assessment instrument; it also sheds light on impact of using different types of feedback on the participants’ learning. The chapter can inspire teacher educators about how, through loop input, the process of delivering a module can turn into learning content for student teachers. It provides the reader with the instrument components included in the appendix, too.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bagarić, V. (2007). Defining communicative competence. Methodik, 8(1), 94–103.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 13–25.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Black, P., Harrison C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & William, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 9–21. Retrieved from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kappanhtm
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139–148. Retrieved from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm
Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Los Angeles, CA: University of California press.
Brown, G. A., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brumfit, C. J. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chappuis, S., & Chappuis, J. (2008). The best value in formative assessment. Educational Leadership, 65, 14–19. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org
Clarke, S. (2005). Formative assessment in action. London: Hodder Murphy.
Davies, A., Brown, A., Elder, C., Hill, K., Lumley, T., & McNamara, T. (1999). Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press & ULES.
Doughill, J. (1987). Not so obvious. In L. Sheldon (Ed.), ELT textbooks and materials: Problems in evaluation and development (pp. 29–37). London: Modem English Publications and the British Council.
Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing languages for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Entwistle, N. J., & Entwistle, A. C. (1992). Contrasting forms of understanding for degree examinations: The student experience and its implications. Higher Education, 22, 205–227.
Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. Hong Kong: Pearson Education Limited.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Hidri, S. (2015). Conceptions of assessment: Investigating what assessment means to secondary and university teachers. Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 19–43.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T. D., & Bonk, W. (2002). Examinee abilities and task difficulty in task-based second language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), 395–418.
North, B. (1991). Standardization of continuous assessment grades. In C. Alderson & B. North (Eds.), Language testing in the 1990’s (pp. 167–177). London: Modern English Publications & the British Council.
O’Sullivan, B., & Green, A. (2011). Test taker characteristics. In L. Taylor (Ed.), Examining speaking: Research and practice in assessing second language speaking. Studies in Language Testing (Vol. 30, pp. 36–65). Cambridge: UCLES & Cambridge University Press.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 77–84. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com
Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.
Stiggins, R. J. (2007). Classroom assessment for student learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Taras, M. (2003). To feedback or not to feedback in student self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5), 549–565.
Taylor, L., & Galaczi, E. (2011). Scoring validity. In L. Taylor (Ed.), Examining speaking: Research and practice in assessing second language speaking. Studies in Language Testing (Vol. 30, pp. 171–233). Cambridge: UCLES & Cambridge University Press.
Vermunt, J. D. H. M., & van Rijswijk, F. A. W. M. (1988). Analysis and development of students’ skill in self-regulated learning. Higher Education, 17, 647–682.
Woodward, T. (1988). Loop-input: A new strategy for trainers. System, 16(1), 23–28.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1
1.1 The Rubric
1.1.1 Oral Reproduction Task
You have to choose one of the texts in your book ‘Oral Reproduction’ or a similar text from other sources. However, if you do not select a text from the book, you need the teacher’s approval in advance before preparing the talk. There might be more than one person choosing a certain text; however, it is a good idea to put your names and your selected texts on the paper on the class notice board to let the whole class see your choices. You are also free to change your choices.
You need to prepare a 15-min talk about your text. The use of visuals is encouraged but not obligatory. You are put in groups of three and you need to tell your group members about the content of the text in a comprehensible and fluent way. The task is a presentation, not a memorization task. It aims at preparing you to develop presentation skills and the ability to get the message across in an organized, understandable and fluent way. You will be assessed based on a checklist which you can find at the bottom of this page. You can also find an outline of the key features this test focuses on as well as a description of a good, average and poor performance. The checklist and descriptors cover the points discussed in the class.
The checklist helps you to get prepared and to focus on the points you need to attend in your presentation. You need to assess your performance after your presentation based on the checklist by putting check marks in it. You also need to assess the performance of other students in your group. There is also a space for your comments if you would like to add anything. After each presentation, you have 2 minutes to fill the checklist for your or group members’ presentations. You can share your views with your group members to see to what extent you are in agreement with them in your assessment or you can keep it for your own. After filling up the checklists, you have about ten minutes to give and receive oral feedback in your groups. All of the checklists are collected at the end of each session. You need to write your name and the name of the presenter on the paper. The presentations and checklists have no impact on your final mark; however, they can help you to develop your presentation, assessment and giving feedback skills.
The teacher occasionally joins your group to observe your presentation; however, you are supposed to be focused and stay involved in your groups without the teacher’s presence. You might have one of the members as the watch-keeper managing the time in your group. All of you are observed twice by the teacher during the term and receive oral feedback on your presentations, as well as the checklists of your presentation completed by the teacher.
There is a 15-min whole-class feedback and reflection time at the end of each session, in which you can share your ideas. You can ask for any clarification or help before, after or during the class while the teacher is not observing a student.
Good luck and happy presentation.
Appendix 2
1.1 The Instrument
1.1.1 A. Assessment Criteria
The purpose of this talk is to help you have an organized clear and fluent oral presentation based on the following standards and criteria:
Appropriate use of language and making oneself understood through
-
Good knowledge of relevant vocabulary
-
Sufficient accurate knowledge of grammar
-
Clear comprehensible pronunciation
-
Fluent stream of speech with appropriate speed and pauses
Clarity of presentation structure through
-
Highlighting the main idea and the supporting ideas
-
Organizing information in a logical and easily comprehensible order at the level of the sentence and text
-
Signalling the structure of the presentation using discourse markers and repetition to make the organizational structure noticeable to the listeners.
-
Having a clear introduction/start and conclusion.
-
Using voice quality, stress and intonation to highlight the relationship between the parts of the text and to convey the message effectively
There are other factors such as using body language, gestures, and visual support which are not directly related to the nature of task but enhance the effectiveness of the presentation.
1.1.2 B. Performance Descriptors
A good performance would reflect presenters’ ability to express themselves comprehensibly in terms of intelligible pronunciation, relevant vocabulary, sufficiently accurate grammar and effective use of intonation and stress. Presenters’ performance would show evidence of their ability of presentation strategies of opening and ending, Information structuring and organization. The presenters would make effective use of their voice, cohesive and discourse markers to show the relationship between the presented pieces of information.
A poor performance, on the other hand, would show little evidence of language ability which is the use of a limited range of words and frequent grammatical mistakes. The pronunciation would need a lot of correction. Stress and intonation are not used to convey meaning and content structure. The presentation would not follow a logical order and it would be difficult to get the main idea, the supporting elements of the content and the conclusion of the presentation.
An average performance would contain some apparent pronunciation and grammatical mistakes which would not lead to complete breakdown of the communication. There would be some distracting stress and intonation features but the message structure would get be conveyed. The range of the used vocabulary would be limited but would convey the meaning. Text structure and organization of the talk would seem to be not smooth but the whole picture of the content and the concluding points would generally be understood.
1.1.3 C. Rating Scale
Oral Presentation Checklist | Date: |
Presenter’s name: | Observer’s name: |
Look at the checklist and decide to what extent the speaker (or you in your presentation) has been successful in showing the following factors in her presentation.
Note: Number 1 means the lowest and number 5 means the highest.
A | Language | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Comments |
1. | Clear comprehensible pronunciation | ||||||
2. | Fluent speed and pause | ||||||
3. | Good knowledge of relevant vocabulary | ||||||
4. | Sufficient accurate knowledge of grammar | ||||||
B | Content | Comments | |||||
1. | Clear main and supporting ideas | ||||||
2. | Logical structure and sequencing | ||||||
3. | Organizational structure signalling | ||||||
4. | Clear beginning and ending | ||||||
5. | Effective use of voice, stress and intonation to highlight points |
Appendix 3
1.1 Reflection Sheet
Reflecting on the oral reproduction module in this term, answer the following questions.
-
What did you like in the oral reproduction module?
-
What did you learn in the module/what areas did you get confident in?
-
What areas do you still need to work on or receive help and support from your teacher on?
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rashidi Pourfard, R. (2018). Developing a Formative Assessment Instrument for an In-service Speaking Course. In: Hidri, S. (eds) Revisiting the Assessment of Second Language Abilities: From Theory to Practice. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62884-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62884-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62883-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62884-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)