Contriving Authentic Interaction: Task Implementation and Engagement in School-Based Speaking Assessment in Hong Kong

  • Daniel M. K. Lam


In 2007, a School-based Assessment (SBA) component combining the assessment of speaking with an extensive reading/viewing program was introduced into the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination (HKCEE). Having operated on a trial basis for several years, SBA is now fully integrated in the new secondary school exit examination, the Hong Kong Diploma of Education Examination (HKDSE), since 2012.


Preparation Time Assessment Task Language Test Language Assessment Topic Shift 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barraja-Rohen, A-M. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 479–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng, L., Andrews, S., & Yu, Y. (2011). Impact and consequences of school-based assessment (SBA): Students’ and parents’ views of SBA in Hong Kong. Language Testing, 28(2), 221–249.Google Scholar
  4. Davison, C. (2007). Views from the chalkface: School-based assessment in Hong Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(1), 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 474–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fok, W. K. (2012). HKCEE English Language school-based assessment: Its implementation at the frontline. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Durham University.Google Scholar
  7. Gan, Z. (2010). Interaction in group oral assessment: A case study of higher- and lower-scoring students. Language Testing, 27(4), 585–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gan, Z. (2011). An Investigation of Personality and L2 Oral Performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(6), 1259–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gan, Z. (2012). Complexity measures, task type, and analytic evaluations of speaking proficiency in a school-based assessment context. Language Assessment Quarterly, 9(2), 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gan, Z., Davison, C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2008). Topic negotiation in peer group oral assessment situations: A conversation analytic approach. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 315–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2009). Principles for large-scale classroom-based teacher assessment of English learners’ language: An initial framework from school-based assessment in Hong Kong. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 524–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. He, L., & Dai, Y. (2006). A corpus-based investigation into the validity of the CET-SET group discussion. Language Testing, 23(3), 370–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. HKEAA (2009). 2012 Hong Kong diploma of secondary education examination English language: School-based assessment teachers’ handbook. Retrieved February 21, 2014, from
  14. Iwashita, N., McNamara, T., & Elder, C. (2001). Can we predict task difficulty in an oral proficiency test? Exploring the potential of an information-processing approach to task design. Language Learning, 51(3), 401–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  16. Kramsch, C. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luk, J. (2010). Talking to score: Impression management in L2 oral assessment and the co-construction of a test discourse genre. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(1), 25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McNamara, T. F. (1997). ‘Interaction’ in second language performance assessment: Whose performance? Applied Linguistics, 18(4), 446–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nitta, R., & Nakatsuhara, F. (2014). A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance. Language Testing, 31(2), 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Spence-Brown, R. (2001). The eye of the beholder: Authenticity in an embedded assessment task. Language Testing, 18(4), 463–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spolsky, B. (1985). The limits of authenticity in language testing. Language Testing, 2(1), 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tavakolian, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–273). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  24. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum. Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  25. Widdowson, H. G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wigglesworth, G. (1997). An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14(1), 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Issues in the development of oral tasks for competency-based assessments of second language performance. In G. Brindley (Ed.), Studies in immigrant English language assessment (Vol. 1. Research Series 11, pp. 81–124). Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.Google Scholar
  28. Wigglesworth, G., & Elder, C. (2010). An investigation of the effectiveness and validity of planning time in speaking test tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Xi, X. (2005). Do visual chunks and planning impact performance on the graph description task in the SPEAK exam? Language Testing, 22(4), 463–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Daniel M.K. Lam 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel M. K. Lam

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations