Communicative EFL Assessment in Cape Verde Perceptions ...Maria Alina da Cruz Lopes Pires Sancha ....
Transcript of Communicative EFL Assessment in Cape Verde Perceptions ...Maria Alina da Cruz Lopes Pires Sancha ....
Maria Alina da Cruz Lopes Pires Sancha
Communicative EFL Assessment in Cape Verde
Perceptions, Constraints and
Suggestions for Effective Testing Tools
Trabalho Cientifico apresentado no ISE como requisito parcial à obtenção do grau
de Licenciatura em Estudos Ingleses.
Instituto Superior de Educação, Departamento de Línguas Estrangeiras, Praia
Orientadora: Deborah Jefferson
Praia, 2007
Ministério da Educação e Ensino Superior
Instituto Superior de Educação
Departamento de Línguas Estrangeiras
Curso de Licenciatura em Estudos Ingleses
Communicative EFL Assessment in Cape Verde
Perceptions, Constraints and
Suggestions for Effective Testing Tools
APROVADO PELOS MEMBROS DO JURI, FOI HOMOLOGADO PELO
CONSELHO CIENTIFICO COMO REGISTO PARCIAL A OBTENÇÃO DO
GRAU DE LICENCIATURA EM ESTUDOS INGLESES.
O júri,
____________________________________
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Praia_____/______/2007
Dedication:
I dedicate this work to my dear family: my husband, Joaquim
Sancha, who has always been there for me, taking care of the
children while I was working; my parents, Maria Lopes and Renato
Lopes and my children, Nuno, Eric and Victor Sancha who were
patient with me while I “neglected” them to do this work.
This work is also dedicated to Miss Dianne Nisita, who always gave
me her support to conclude this work.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the helpful insights from the teachers at the English
Studies Centre, for their initial encouragement. First my deepest gratitude goes to
my advisors Dianne Nisita and Deborah Jefferson. A special note of appreciation
goes to Dianne Nisita for her invaluable assistance, careful reading and excellent
suggestions, and to Deborah Jefferson, who helped me elaborate this present work;
without their help it would not have been possible. I also want to thank my dear
friend Jacob Olugbenga Adesida and all the teachers that participated in my field
research. Last but not least my deepest gratitude is extended to everyone who has
encouraged me along the way.
TABLE OF CONTENT
Chapter One: INTRODUCTION...............................................................................2
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................5
2.1. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)...................................................5
2.2. Communication and communicative competence ..........................................6
2.3. Assessment For Oral Proficiency ...................................................................9
2.3.1. Definition.................................................................................................9
2.3.2. What is a test?........................................................................................11
2.3.3. Testing Characteristics ..........................................................................12
2.3.3.1 Validity ............................................................................................12
2.3.3.2. Reliability .......................................................................................13
2.3.3.3. Practicality ......................................................................................13
2.3.3.4. Backwash Effects............................................................................15
2.4. Scoring..........................................................................................................16
2.4.1. Holistic scoring......................................................................................16
2.4.2. Objective scoring ...................................................................................16
Chapter Three: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................19
Chapter Four: RESEARCH ANALYSIS ................................................................23
Chapter five: RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................33
5.1 Criteria for the design of assessment tasks ....................................................35
5.2. Alternative Tools for Assessment.................................................................36
5.2.1. Portfolios................................................................................................37
5.2.2. Group and pair work..............................................................................41
5.2.2.1. Assessing and evaluating group work ............................................43
5.2.3. Aural/ oral Assessment ..........................................................................45
Chapter six: CONCLUSION ...................................................................................50
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
ABSTRACT
This study has been written to investigate Capeverdean teachers’
perceptions of using communicative assessment tools and in response, to
recommend alternative assessment tools by demonstrating their ability to
effectively assess speaking competency. Interviews were conducted with
Capeverdean Secondary school English teachers which revealed the practical
constraints of communicative assessment in the Capeverdean context.
This paper attempts to encourage and assist Capeverdean EFL teachers with
innovative ways to monitor and evaluate communicative assessment.
2
Chapter One: INTRODUCTION
Today, English is one of the most important languages in the world.
However, it wasn’t always like this. Four hundred years ago, during Shakespeare’s
time, only a few million people spoke English, and other European nations, as well
as other countries around the world, didn’t think it was important. The English
language began to spread in the 17th century when European immigrants, mainly
English, sailed to the U.S. to live on the east coast. Today, English is spoken as a
mother tongue on all seven continents.
People who speak English can be categorized in three groups: 1.) people
who learned it as their native language, 2). people who learned it in a society that is
mainly bilingual, and 3). people who learned it for pleasure or necessity—
educational or professional. In total, about 420 million people—or one in seven—
speak English, second only to Mandarin Chinese. In addition, English is seen,
heard, or written everywhere: 75% of the world’s mail, 60% of the world’s phone
calls, 80% of the computer data and Internet, and more the 50% of the world’s
newspapers are in English. Also, a lot of the most popular books, movies and music
are in English.
Therefore if English is taught as a way to communicate, there must be
present ways to evaluate student’s proficiency as a communicator of the language
Thereby evaluation and teaching are not discrete entities, but work together to
ensure language acquisition. Teaching has always been a process of helping others
to discover “new” ideas and “new” ways of organizing what they have learnt.
Whether this process takes place through systematic teaching and testing, or
through a discovery approach; testing is and remains an integral part of teaching.
Testing is one of the most difficult parts of teaching. Most of the textbooks
used in our schools are communicative approach centred, but the tests are usually
grammar-based tools. There is a great need to change our approach towards
language assessment in order to assess oral proficiency.
As Bostwick and Gakuen (1995) state, assessment can be used to improve
instruction and help students take control of their own learning. That is more likely
to be accomplished when assessment is authentic and tied to the instructional goals
3
of the program. The Capeverdean Evaluation System recognizes the need of a
changing approach when it says that the OEA (Outros Elementos de Avaliação)
can be: oral and/ or written questions, individual and group works, researches and
practical works or training in companies.
All this said there are many difficulties involved in the construction and
administration of any speaking assessment tools. There is a great discrepancy
between the predominance of the Communicative Approach and the accurate
measurement of communication ability (Hughes, 1989). Whereas Capeverdean
Secondary EFL teachers have been trying to expand Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) in their classrooms, communicative assessment has received little
attention. If it is important to know if a person can speak a second or foreign
language, then it should be important to test that person's speaking ability directly
(Jones, 1977).
Speaking assessment in Capeverdean Secondary Schools does not assess
students’ oral proficiency from the perspective of language use and
communication. Most of the teacher directed activities test for recall due to a lack
of well-defined and well-defined indicators of what and how communicative tests
should be done. This is not a Cape Verde specific problem. As Nagata points out,
rote memorization of text dialogs has been a common practice for speaking
assessment in Korea (1995). Capeverdean EFL classes join the ranks of those that
are not in compliance with matters of validity and reliability in relation to speaking
assessment. The need for classroom teachers to become better equipped with
measurement tools to evaluate students' oral proficiency is becoming more and
more important. Speaking assessment should be a focal part of all language
examinations in Capeverdean EFL Secondary School programs.
To this end I have written my thesis, to serve as one of the first
Capeverdean research documents on speaking assessment a topic that remains
largely unexplored.
My questions are:
• Do Capeverdean Secondary School English teachers conduct
assessment of students' speaking competency
4
• What are their perceptions of the practical difficulties of assessing
speaking?
With these questions this research aims to:
• Recommended speaking assessment tools that can be adapted for the
Capeverdean EFL classrooms.
We need to better understand how communicative assessment will help our
learners to identify their level of achievement in other to improve their
communicative competence. The next chapter will talk about some prominent
studies to support the present research.
5
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews prominent studies to support the present research. The
principal areas to be discussed are communication and communicative competence,
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), speaking assessment, and the teachers’
perceptions of speaking assessment. Since communicative assessment is intimately
related to communication and communicative competence, we need first to
understand these concepts to better understand the relationship between them.
2.1. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
According to Richards and Rodgers (1986), Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) starts with a theory of language as communication. The classroom
goal of instruction is focused on developing learners’ communicative competence.
Thus, learners are encouraged to communicate using the target language through
interaction from the beginning of instruction.
In CLT, meaning is most important. Larsen-Freeman maintains that
“Almost everything that is done is done with a communicative intent” (1986:132).
Accordingly, the process of meaning negotiation is essential in CLT (Paulston,
1974). In order to encourage learners to communicate better, errors should be
tolerated with little explicit instruction on language rules (Larsen-Freeman, 1986).
Naturally, CLT favours small group activities by students to maximize the time
each student has to negotiate meaning. CLT employs information-gap activities,
problem-solving tasks, and role-plays through pair and group work (Larsen-
Freeman, 1986).
Another feature of CLT is its “learner-centredness view of second language
teaching” (Richards & Rodgers, 1986:69). According to Savignon (1991), every
individual student possesses unique interests, styles, needs and goals. Therefore, it
is recommended that teachers develop materials based on students' demonstrated
needs of a particular class.
CLT emphasizes the use of authentic materials in teaching language
(Widdowson, 1996). It also encourages giving learners the opportunity to respond
to genuine communicative needs in real-life situations. This is to help learners
6
develop strategies for understanding language as actually used by native speakers
(Canale and Swain, 1980).
2.2. Communication and communicative competence
As a basis for investigating communicative competence, the researcher
begins by defining what communication is. Morrow (1977) describes seven
features which characterize communication. According to him, communication
• is interaction-based
• is unpredictable in both form and message
• varies according to sociolinguistic discourse context
• is carried out under performance limitations such as fatigue,
memory constraints, and unfavourable environmental conditions
• always has a purpose (to establish social relations, to express ideas
and feelings)
• involves authentic, as opposed to textbook contrived language
• is judged to be successful or unsuccessful on the basis of actual
outcomes (Morrow, in Rivera, 1984:39).
An adequate description of the nature of communicative competence is
crucial to instrument content and instrument method (Weir, 1990). According to
Ellis (1994:696), communicative competence is “the knowledge that users of a
language have internalized to enable them to understand and produce messages in
the language”.
Several models of communicative competence have been proposed (Ellis,
1994). Chomsky (1965) proposed the concept of grammatical or linguistic
competence and highlighted cognitive aspects of human language acquisition and
learning. He distinguished between competence (one's underlying knowledge of the
language) and performance (the realization of language in specific situations). On
the other hand, Hymes (1971), who coined the term “communicative competence”,
emphasized social, interactive, and negotiating process of language. Hymes
expanded Chomsky's notion of competence into communicative competence by
including both grammatical rules and rules of language use (Hymes, 1971; Taylor,
1983). Having this in mind we should motivate our students as much as we can to
7
develop their communicative competence and the best way of doing so is to assess
our students’ communicative competence.
Canale and Swain (1980) identified three distinctive components of
communicative competence: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence
and strategic competence. Grammatical competence includes one's knowledge of
lexical items, morphology, syntax, semantics, and phonology in a language.
Sociolinguistic competence encompasses the knowledge of rules governing the
production and interpretation of language in different sociolinguistic contexts.
Lastly, strategic competence is defined as one's capability to sustain
communication using various verbal or nonverbal strategies when communication
breakdowns occur. This model was updated by Canale (1983). He proposed a four-
dimensional model of communicative competence: grammatical, sociolinguistic,
discourse, and strategic competence.
Bachman (1990) suggested a theoretical framework for communicative
language ability. It includes knowledge structures, strategic competence,
psychophysical mechanisms, context of situation, and language competence.
Language competence is further divided into organizational competence
(grammatical and textual competences) and pragmatic competence (illocutionary
and sociolinguistic competences). In his schematization of “language competence”
Bachman takes a broader view of the role of strategic competence than Canale and
Swain do. Bachman separates strategic competence from what he calls 'language
competence'.
Agreement on what components should be included in a model of
communicative competence is never unanimous (Weir, 1993). In spite of many
disputes by applied linguists (Lluda, 2000), this notion of communicative
competence outlined above has proven useful in suggesting specifications for
content, formats, and scoring criteria in communication-oriented language
proficiency assessment (Bachman and Palmer, 1984). However, “it must be
emphasized that they are still themselves in need of validation” (Weir, 1990:8).
Now that we have seen what Bachman said about communication and
communicative competence it is necessary to know how we can monitor and
evaluate in order to better develop our learners’ communicative competencies and
8
therefore we will look at the tests’ characteristics which better serve to our
purposes.
9
2.3. Assessment For Oral Proficiency
2.3.1. Definition
Assessment may be defined as “any method used to better understand the
current knowledge that a student possesses.” This implies that assessment can be as
simple as a teacher's subjective judgment based on a single observation of student
performance, or as complex as a five-hour standardized test. The idea of current
knowledge implies that what a student knows is always changing and that we can
make judgments about student achievement through comparisons over a period of
time. Assessment may affect decisions about grades, advancement, placement and
instructional needs.
Assessment has many purposes.
“Assessment is about several things at once …It is about reporting on students’
achievements and about teaching them better through expressing to them more
clearly the goals of our curricula. It is about measuring student learning; it is
about diagnosing misunderstandings in order to help students to learn more
effectively. It concerns the quality of the teaching as well as the quality of the
learning.” (Ramsden, 2003, p 177)
It is necessary to reflect on what it is that is being referred to as
“assessment”. There are two key purposes: to certify and to prompt learning (often
labelled summative and formative assessment). It used to be argued that we must
always keep these two purposes separate as the characteristics of good assessment
for formative and summative purposes differ fundamentally. It is true that they
have fundamentally different features. Formative assessment requires the feedback
of good quality rich information sufficiently detailed and focused to enable the
learner to benefit from it. Summative assessment is judged in terms of the extent to
which it accurately portrays what a student knows or can do or is equipped for (for
example, further advanced study in the same area).
How can English oral language proficiency skills be assessed? English oral
language proficiency is an essential prerequisite skill for English language learners
(ELLs) wishing to speak and read in English (Garcia, 2002). Students who have
not developed adequate oral language skills in English will not be able to
10
comprehend what they read. Without strong oral language skills they are also more
likely to lack confidence when they speak or read aloud in English. ELLs should be
given numerous opportunities to develop oral language before and during their
development of literacy skills.
ELLs need to develop both receptive and expressive oral language skills in
English. The receptive skills refer to the skills required to comprehend what has
been said. The expressive or productive skills refer to one's ability to speak and
convey one's thoughts and ideas to others. Without a foundation of receptive skills,
students will not be able to develop strong expressive skills. Receptive and
expressive skills should be assessed.
ELLs need to have conversational as well as academic language skills.
According to Cummins (n.d.), ELLs must be proficient in academic language in
order to be academically successful in the English language curriculum. When
students are able to talk with one another and participate in informal conversations
with their teachers, it is easy to assume that they have mastered the English
language. However, we must not confuse this ability to converse informally with a
mastery of academic language. ELLs do need to be able to converse informally, but
they also need to be able to use more complex, abstract language in order to
comprehend and use academic English.
Receptive Oral Language Skills. Listening skills can be assessed for ELLs at all
stages of language acquisition, even at the beginning. Novice ELLs can
demonstrate comprehension nonverbally. Teachers can assess this comprehension
by observing how well ELLs follow simple commands such as, “Stand”, “Take out
your pencil”, or “Go to the window.”
Teachers can also ask novice ELLs to indicate comprehension by holding
up pictures and showing yes/no cards. ELLs can point to appropriate pictures in
response to simple questions. For example, “Show me a banana”, or “Show me
something that you eat”. Teachers may wish to keep anecdotal records to indicate
how much individual ELLs are comprehending. These records may be kept in
ELLs’ portfolios.
Expressive Language Skills. Oral language skills can be assessed holistically or
analytically. Holistic assessment provides one overall score or rating, whereas
11
analytic assessment rates discrete language skills. Both holistic and analytic rubrics
can help teachers pinpoint different aspects of language that should be assessed.
Breiner-Sanders, Lowe, Miles, and Swendler (1999) believe that the way an
educated person uses language is a good yardstick for language proficiency. In
addition to tests, there are other analytic tools that help teachers focus on the
different aspects of language use. Rubrics and matrices generally focus on the
following aspects of language use: comprehension, fluency, pronunciation,
grammar, and vocabulary.
It is important to carefully observe how individual ELLs use both receptive and
expressive language. Listed below are questions that may help teachers analyze
ELL oral language use. Note that the first two items focus on receptive skills,
though receptive and expressive oral language skills are often intertwined.
• Does the ELL understand what is being said?
• Does the ELL understand conversational as well as academic
language?
• Can others easily understand what the ELL says, or does
pronunciation interfere with the ELL's communication?
• Does the ELL speak at a natural pace or haltingly?
• Does the ELL make many grammatical errors? What types of errors
are made? Are these errors typical of a beginning language learner or of
someone who is at a higher level of language acquisition?
• What types of vocabulary words does the ELL use? Does the ELL
use academic vocabulary appropriately? Is the vocabulary used appropriate
to the message being conveyed?
2.3.2. What is a test?
According to Bachman “a test is a procedure designed to elicit certain
behaviour from which one can make inferences about certain characteristics of an
individual.” (1991:20) From this definition, it follows that a test is a measurement
instrument designed to elicit a specific sample of an individual’s behaviour.
Tests are meant to help teachers evaluate their students’ progress and
identify areas where further work is needed. Tests also tell students how well they
are doing and provide them short term goals – something to aim for at the end of
12
the week. In order for a test to give you the right information, it is important to
make sure that students understand what they have to do.
2.3.3. Testing Characteristics
Testing oral proficiency has become one of the most important issues in
language testing since the role of speaking ability has become more central in
language teaching (Hartley and Sporing, 1999). Assessment needs to be theory
driven. The concept of validity, reliability and practicality affect assessment design
(Bachman, 1990). In this section the various types of testing validity will be
discussed. In addition how the concept of validity relates to practicality and
reliability will also be discussed.
These characteristics are important if we want tests to be effective.
2.3.3.1 Validity
We expect our students to learn strategies for independent learning and
when they need to, not be beholden to a standardised curriculum. This means that
validity of assessment must come to take on greater importance. That is,
assessment needs to reflect what is most important in educational outcomes and
this may be at the expense of simple reliability. When we have multiple sources of
assessment, the risk of unreliability in any one of them can be countenanced more
readily than can the risk of invalidity.
Spolsky (1975) stated that validity is the central problem in foreign
language testing. Validity is concerned with whether a test measures what it is
intended to measure (Weir, 1990). A test of speaking ability in a classroom setting
is usually an achievement test. An achievement test should have content and face
validities (Davies, 1983). Since content validity asks if the test content matches the
content of the course of study (Bachman, 1990), what teachers can do is to match
the course objectives and syllabus design with the test items. This attitude by
teachers is crucial in a classroom test because teachers may tend to use test tasks
different from the course objectives especially when oral aspects are involved
(Nakamura, 1993).
Face validity pertains to whether the test 'looks valid' to the examinees, the
administrative personnel and other technically untrained observers (Bachman,
13
1990). Face validity is a must in a classroom speaking test, because the students'
motivation is promoted for speaking if a test has good face validity (Hughes, 1989).
Language testing can be put on a scientific footing through construct
validity (Hughes, 1989). Bachman (1990) also highlighted that construct validity is
the most fundamental validity for a speaking test. Construct validity examines if
the test matches a theoretical construct (Bachman, 1990). This cannot easily be
handled by classroom teachers because of the abstract nature of language abilities
(Nakamura, 1993).
2.3.3.2. Reliability
The concept of reliability is particularly important when considering
communicative language testing (Porter, 1983). Reliability is concerned with the
extent to which we can depend on the test results (Weir, 1990).
Rater reliability is important to overall test reliability. What raters need to
do for this purpose is to achieve high inter-rater reliability for these assessments.
The degree of inter-rater reliability is established by correlating the scores obtained
by candidates from rater A with those from rater B. The concern of the rater is how
to enhance the agreement between raters by establishing explicit guidelines and
maintaining adherence to them for the conduct of this rating (Bachman, 1990).
Although reliability is something raters need to try to achieve in the tests, it
may not be the prime consideration all the time (Bachman, 1990). It is said that
there is a reliability-validity tension. Reliability offers a possible compromise. It is
occasionally essential to sacrifice a degree of reliability to enhance validity
(Davies, 1990). For example, in certain circumstances, reliability and validity are
mutually exclusive. However, if a choice has to be made, validity is more
important for speaking assessment (Bachman, 1990).
2.3.3.3. Practicality
A valid and reliable test is useless if it is not practical (Bachman, 1990).
“This involves questions of economy, ease of administration, scoring and
interpretation of results.”(Bachman, 1990: 34). The context for the implementation
of a test is a vital consideration. Classroom tests should not require costly
specialized equipment or highly trained examiners or raters (Weir, 1993). The tasks
should be the most efficient way of obtaining information about test takers. There
14
is much pressure on teachers to make tests as short and practical as possible
because teachers cannot afford to spend much time in assessing students'
communicative ability. However, “this should never be allowed to put at risk test
validity” (Weir, 1993: 22).
To sum up, there is a need to develop test formats that provide overall
balance of reliability, validity and practicality in the assessment of communicative
skills (Bachman, 1990). Authenticity as a concept has also been a major concern in
language testing (Bachman, 1990). Therefore, it is considered necessary to briefly
examine authenticity.
According to Bachman, authenticity is defined as a quality of the
relationship between features of the test and those of the non-test target-use
context. There are two approaches on authenticity; the real-life approach and the
interactional ability approach. “Real-life (RL) approach” tries to develop tests that
mirror the “reality” of non-test language use. This approach has been considered as
naive because the test setting itself does not exactly resemble its real-life setting
(Spolsky, 1985). Also “this approach does not distinguish between language
ability and the context in which this ability is observed, since non-test language
performance constitutes the criterion for authenticity and the definition of
proficiency.” (Bachman, 1990: 302).
In the second approach, the authenticity of language tests arises from their
“situational” and their “interactional” authenticity. “Situational authenticity” refers
to the relationship of features of the test method to particular features of the target-
use situation. “Interactional authenticity” mentions the extent to which an
examinee’s language ability is engaged in the test task. Thus, the emphasis in this
model shifts from “attempting to sample actual instances of non-test language use
to that of determining what combination of test method facets is likely to promote
an appropriate interaction of a particular group of test takers with the testing
context” (Bachman, 1990: 317).
Assessment can be used to improve instruction and help students take
control of their learning (Bostwick and Gakuen, 1995). Accordingly, it is also
necessary to briefly examine “backwash effect” as a concept.
15
2.3.3.4. Backwash Effects
This term describes the effect of testing on teaching: “Assessment should be
supportive of good teaching and have a corrective influence on bad teaching”
(Hughes, 1989:2). Backwash can be harmful or beneficial. Positive backwash
happens when students study and learn those things which teachers intend them to
study and learn (Hartley and Sporing, 1999). On the other hand, negative backwash
means the converse. For example, if teachers measure writing skills only through
multiple-choice items, then there will be pressure to practice such items, rather than
writing itself. In this case, the backwash would be negative.
Bachman (1990) highlighted that positive “backwash effect” will result
when the testing procedures reflect the skills and abilities that are taught in the
course. Hartley and Sporing (1999) support the rationale and validity of assessing
students communicatively who have been taught communicatively. By assessing
communicatively, teachers would expect the backwash to be beneficial. If teachers
want students to learn to communicate effectively in a variety of practical
situations, teachers should test them on these skills. This conscious feedback loop
between teaching and testing, in terms of content and of approach, is a vital
mechanism for educational development (Bostwick and Gakuen, 1995).
One might conclude that the key to effective oral proficiency testing lies in
matching elicitation techniques with the purposes and constraints of the testing
situation. In the case of school-related speaking assessment, tests are usually brief
and consist of a single elicitation procedure (Madeson, 1980).
There is a great range of test types, depending on the content of instruction.
For example, some tests use a simple question and answer procedure to assess
communicative matters such as amount of information conveyed,
comprehensibility, appropriateness of vocabulary, and fluency. Other formats
include the guided interview, evaluation during group interaction, oral reports,
dialogues and role-play, skits and drama. While the latter five are high in
communicative face validity, they are difficult to assess with any consistency
(Madeson, 1980).
Having this in mind it is important to know the best scoring procedures to
assess communicative competence.
16
2.4. Scoring
Scoring is not a real problem when we are talking about objective tests.
Objective tests can be marked with reliability very easily. It does not matter who is
going to mark them, because they will always get the same results. However
scoring communicative competencies is not easy since oral tests are subjective,
many times teacher are confused of what and how to test; teachers do not have
optimum conditions for observing the response, etc.
The techniques for eliciting speech samples must be linked with appropriate
scoring procedures (Madeson, 1980). The decision as to whether to use a global or
specific scoring procedure depends on the purpose of the test (Jones, 1977).
There are two contrasting ways of grading student speech: holistic scoring
and objective scoring.
2.4.1. Holistic scoring
Holistic scoring concentrates on communication and tends to be selected
when the teacher evaluates a wide variety of criteria simultaneously (the content,
the grammar, students’ point of view, the function of the language used, and
students’ way of conveying the message, and so on). The limitation of holistic
scoring is that some teachers find it confusing to evaluate many things
simultaneously (Bachman, 1990); it may be only those teachers with considerable
experience and training who can use holistic scoring effectively
2.4.2. Objective scoring
On the other hand, specific scoring procedures attempt to identify smaller
units such as appropriateness, fluency, grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation.
Objectified scoring (Bachman, 1990) can be used by teachers with little specialized
training and by highly trained teachers who prefer evaluation which is consistent
and easy to use. For most teachers, objectified scoring is a practical alternative.
However, it is possible to lose perspective of the overall performance. Even on a
speaking test with objectified scoring, it is good to indicate a very general
impression of a student’s performance. This can be done simply by an indication
that the person is “high”, “mid”, or “low”. The general rating can verify the
teacher’s objectified score (Bachman, 1990).
17
Further considerations for scoring
When scoring an oral proficiency exam there are many things to consider:
three important scoring considerations are given below:
• use a scoring sheet. At the left teachers can number the test item.
Next to the test number is a short version of the cue. At the right are at least
three boxes for teachers to check- the first for 2-point answers, the next for
1-point responses, and the next for “0” or unacceptable answers (Bachman,
1990).
• score the speaking test immediately if possible. Usually the scoring
of a speaking test is more accurate when it is done during the process of the
test itself. So if teachers feel comfortable testing and scoring at the same
time, it is recommended that both be handled together. Usually, however, it
is difficult for teachers to handle both. The alternative method is to
determine the score immediately after the test has been administered (Jones,
1977). Furthermore, an interviewer should not be seen making notes about
an interviewee’s performance, either during the interview or any other time
(Hughes, 1989). If the examiner is making notes during the test, it can
distract the examinee and create unnecessary anxiety (Nagata, 1995).
• have necessary resources are available, the ideal method is to have
an examiner and a scorer present during the test. The examiner can
administer the test, while the scorer, located in a place so that he or she
cannot easily be seen by the examinee, can record the information for the
score (Bostwick and Gakuen, 1995). Hughes (1989) also recommends that a
second tester be present for an interview. This is because the difficulty of
conducting an interview and keeping track of the candidates’ performance.
The literature review sought to show the necessity of communicative
assessment to foster the learners’ communicative skills.
It also defined assessment, its main purpose and specified and how it can be
used to improve communicative skills.
In response, alternative tools for communicative assessment will be discussed
in recommendation to assist in assessing CLT more accurately and creatively.
18
19
Chapter Three: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
To collect data this study used a qualitative approach. According to
Wiersma (1995), qualitative research investigates the complex phenomena
experienced by the participants by examining people’s words and actions in
descriptive ways. Qualitative research uses the researcher as the data collection
instrument and employs inductive analysis (Maykut and Morehouse, 1994). The
researcher operates in a natural setting. Wiersma, 1995).
Also, McDonough and McDonough (1997: 53) say, “qualitative research
usually gathers observations, interviews, field data records, questionnaires,
transcripts, and so on”.
In this study, two qualitative data collection instruments were used: “a
questionnaire with open-ended questions” and “semi-structured interviews” with
teachers.
According to Maykut and Morehouse (1994), questionnaire research is
popular among educational researchers in general and ELT research in particular.
McDonough and McDonough (1997: 171-172) state the advantages of
questionnaires as follows:
• The knowledge needed is controlled by the questions, therefore it
affords a good deal of precision and clarity.
• Questionnaires can be used on a small scale, in-house and on a large
scale, requiring little more extra effort than photocopying and postage.
• Data can be gathered in several different time slots: all at once in a
class, in the respondents’ own time as long as it is easy to return, at
convenience when a suitable respondent happens to come along, and in
different locations at different times; but in all of these the data is
comparable, the questions are the same and the format is identical.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with some of the participants
because “the interview is a very good way of accessing peoples’ perceptions”
(Punch, 1998: 174). As well, the interviews were considered a method of
triangulation, a “checking out the consistency” (Patton, 1990: 464) of the data
obtained from the questionnaire responses. Further, it was believed that such
20
triangulation of data may yield factors not mentioned by the participants in the
questionnaire (Punch, 1998). McDonough and McDonough (1997: 184) remark “a
semi-structured interview” is regarded as “being closer to the qualitative paradigm
because it allows for richer interaction and more personalized responses”.
One of the aims of this research, as stated earlier, was to investigate
Capeverdean Secondary School English teachers’ perceptions of speaking
assessment.
Questionnaire participants
A questionnaire (Appendix 7) was administered to ten English teachers who
work in different Secondary schools, Domingos Ramos, where I teach, Cesaltina
Ramos and Palmarejo Sencodary School (Years 7-12) in Praia.
As in any research paper there are lots of difficulties and problems faced
during the data collecting process. The first challenge that I faced was figuring out
what data was necessary and how to collect it. I learned a lot as I struggled through
the research process. The questions had to be written in a way that I could receive
the responses that would bring clarity to my thesis argument. Therefore it was
necessary to write and rewrite questions that were reliable, clearly stated and
unambiguous. This was a trial and error process, arduous but necessary.
The second challenge was in choosing a secondary school where I could
collect the data. After choosing the schools, I faced another problem that was
finding teachers to who could answer my questionnaires. At Domingos Ramos it
was easier because I work there and my colleagues new how important it was for
me to get the information in a short period of time. Distributing and collecting the
data was done within less then a week due the lack of time. Although I had little
time, the process worked smoothly because I personally delivered the surveys
waited and collected them. I was able to discuss with the teachers my interest in my
project, the urgency of time and how important it was for me to get their answer.
This I believe made them more amenable to assist me.
I chose these schools, first Domingos Ramos because it is situated in the
centre of the city and they offer all secondary school cycles, it is a school with
history where we find not only old fashion teachers but also teachers who have
21
recently graduated which gives us a broader idea of language teaching and
assessment. I chose the others schools because I wanted to see if teachers from
other schools were using the same approach of teachers from Domingos Ramos.
Four males and six females responded to the questionnaire. The participants
ranged in age from 23 to 46 years, with the majority in their 30s. The participants’
experience in teaching English ranged from one to sixteen years. At the time of the
data collection, one was teaching 7th grade students, one was teaching 8th grade
students, one teacher was teaching 11th grade and one was teaching 12th grade
students. One teacher was teaching both 9th grade and 10th grade students, two
were teaching 10th and 12th, two were teaching 11th and 12th and one was teaching
8th and 11th grade students. All participants had experience in conducting speaking
assessment in Secondary Schools.
Interview informants
Six of the ten respondents to the questionnaire volunteered to be
interviewed, and of these, four were ultimately selected for interview by following
“Patton’s maximum variation sampling” (cited in Lincoln & Guba, 1985: 200). The
researcher considered maximum variation in participants’ age, gender, teaching
experience, teaching setting, and grades taught. It was decided that teachers of all
grades (7-12) must be represented in the group of interview informants and as well,
that equal numbers of male and female teachers and teachers in Domingos Ramos,
Cesaltina Ramos and Palmarejo Secondary schools should be included. Two other
parameters, informants’ age and years of teaching, were also included to ensure as
much variety as possible. In this way, four teachers who were representative of the
ten original participants were selected for interview
22
Data collection
The research was carried out using a questionnaire and in-depth interview
method. Firstly, in an attempt to develop an appropriate survey instrument for this
study, a pilot questionnaire was administered to five English teachers who are my
colleagues at Domingos Ramos Secondary School. The pilot questionnaire served
to identify those items which were unclear, repetitive, and unnecessary.
The final version of the questionnaire (Appendix 7) included both one
open-ended question and questions with fixed alternatives generated from the data
collected in the pilot survey (Lee, 1998). It asked for opinions on speaking
assessment as well as the teachers’ professional, educational, and personal
background. The questionnaire was written in English, since it was to be answered
by English teachers.
After analysis of the questionnaire responses, four participants were chosen
for interviews on the basis of maximum variation in age, gender, teaching
experience, teaching setting, and grades taught. These four were invited to be
interviewed so that their perceptions of speaking assessment could be further
explored. The interview was done in Portuguese to ensure complete understanding
of the items by the teachers.
The four individual interviews helped to collect more private interpretations
of the participants’ experience and opinions. According to Punch (1998: 178), such
interviews may have the characteristic of “understanding the complex behaviour of
people without imposing any a priori categorization which might limit the field of
inquiry”. The interviews were semi-structured and conducted in a systematic order.
23
Chapter Four: RESEARCH ANALYSIS
This chapter presents the findings from the questionnaire and semi-
structured interviews, which were conducted as described in the previous chapter.
The domain of oral test is very small. However the following section shows us the
initiative the teachers have been taking to implement communicative assessment.
Overall findings
From the responses of the participants to the questionnaire (see appendix 8),
it was found that all the participants were conducting speaking assessments at least
once a year in their classrooms. However, they expressed frustration in how the
communicative competencies assessments were conducted. Almost all were using
speaking assessment tasks which did not reflect authentic interaction between
themselves and their students. They also reported that they were not qualified to
construct and administer communicative speaking assessment.
Teachers are so unaware of communicative assessment that they take tasks
they perform in class and refer to it as a formal graded assessment.
Analysis of data revealed three main categories.
(1) Types of speaking assessment tasks used by Capeverdean Secondary School
English teachers.
(2) The teachers’ perceptions of speaking assessment
(3) The practical constraints on the teachers in conducting speaking assessment to
assess students’ communicative competence.
Types of speaking assessment tasks used by Capeverdean Secondary Schools.
The speaking assessment tasks reported by the Capeverdean teachers based
on the completed questionnaires are described in the next section one by one.
These responses (see appendix 8, table 3) will be discussed in detail in the
following section.
24
1- Let the students pick up one or two questions in the question box containing
many questions.
The responses of eight participants to the questionnaire indicated that they
used speaking assessment tasks which gave the students less burden and so helped
to lower the affective filter (Krashen & Terrell, 1984). Because students’
impromptu responses were not expected from this task, teachers announced
questions, topics and tasks in advance so that students could prepare their answers.
Students were asked to select and answer one or two questions from a question
box. The teachers mentioned several advantages of this type of task.
• This task is related with listening. Though teachers announce
interview questions in advance, only when students can understand
teachers’ questions, they can respond. This allows interaction between a
teacher and the students. (Teacher 4).
• This task can give the students motivation to study language
functions to be covered in the textbook. Though students are asked to
answer one or two questions by the teacher, they need to prepare for more
answers. They don’t know which questions are to be asked of them because
there are many questions in the question box. (Teacher 10)
• This task allows a teacher to elicit students’ responses, though their
responses were not impromptu. I guess it is close to authentic speaking
assessment task, compared with other tasks similar to memory test.
(Teacher 2)
2- Show and tell
This type of assessment task was used by seven participants. For this task,
students were asked to bring real objects such as pictures and their favourite
personal belongings to the classroom from home. Then they showed them to the
teacher, and described them in English.
As this type of task did not need the teachers’ English speaking proficiency
and elicitation, the teachers’ role was that of a scorer only rather than that of an
interviewer. The teachers had only to score students’ performances on the basis of
their degree of preparation.
25
• It’s good to elicit students’ utterances. Anyway, they have to
describe something in English. As a teacher, my role is to score their
performances. Students are interested in this task.(Teacher 4)
Because of the lack of well-defined and well-developed materials, teachers
use what is handy and what they are used to using, even though these activities are
very limited and they do not really test students’ communicative competencies.
3- Self-introduction or family introduction
Six participants used self-introduction or family introduction. This task was
used particularly by the participants who were teaching lower level students
probably because of the requirements of the syllabus at those levels.
• This task is good for the beginners of English. Above all, topics are
familiar to the students. Students can cope with this task easily. Students’
participation is active. (Teacher 5)
4- Role- play
With respect to role- play, six participants reported that they used role-
play.
• Teachers have only to give situations. Students need to make their
own dialog with their partners. Then they have to memorize their scripts.
This task can’t be done by only one student. So it is good for students’
cooperative learning. (Teacher 4).
• This task needs interaction between the students. From the
perspective of validity, it’s close to authentic speaking assessment tasks.
(Teacher 2).
On the other hand, Teacher 5 expressed a different opinion.
• This task can be beneficial for the students who are good at acting.
Sometimes I find it difficult to balance students’ action and language
proficiency when scoring speaking assessment. (Teacher 5)
Here this activity has multiple objectives as the teacher 5, has pointed out.
The more vivid “acting component” takes precedent over oral presentation.
5- Rote memory of text dialog
26
Five of the ten participants mentioned that they used rote memory of text
dialog for speaking assessment task.
• Rote memory of text dialog is not an effective task for speaking
assessment, I guess. But I don’t know about effective speaking assessment
tasks for my students in Capeverdean classroom. My students like this task
because they don’t feel burdened. They have only to memorize text dialog.
Students are highly motivated by the fact that it’s much easier to get good
scores than other tasks. (Teacher 10).
Rote memory of text dialog was not used by teachers under the age of 36.
This finding shows that younger teachers, because of more recent training and
qualifications, did not view rote memory of text dialog as a useful type of
assessment to speaking tasks. However even these recent graduated teachers do not
have a clear idea of what and how to assess communicative competencies.
6- Picture description
Only one participant used picture description. He was teaching both 11th
and 12th grade students. He said:
• Though it takes a lot time to elicit students’ responses, I think it’s an
authentic speaking assessment task. When this task was given to the
students, their responses were different and creative. Above all, this task
elicits students’ impromptu responses. It is not kind of a memory test.
(Teacher 4).
7- Information-gap activity
None of the participants used this task.
• Students have a very small English vocabulary and limited number
of structures. They don’t have the necessary proficiency in English. So
students feel very worried about this task, I guess. (Teacher 2).
• I am short of time to conduct speaking assessment for 38 students
within 45-50 minutes. Students have much hesitation in doing this task. As
a rater, I easily become irritated when students don’t give prompt reply. For
27
It is clear from teachers’ responses, that although teachers are aware that
there is a great necessity of speaking assessment, teachers do not have effective
tools to assess students’ communicative competencies.
Teachers’ perceptions of the necessity of speaking assessment
Almost all the participants (nine out of the ten) had positive attitudes
towards the necessity of speaking assessment. Interview informants viewed
speaking assessment as a necessary part of curriculum.
• Speaking assessment is necessary for the students. Students tend to
be motivated by assessment or examinations. (Teacher 7)
On the other hand, one participant gave a different opinion to the necessity
of speaking assessment in the Capeverdean EFL classroom context.
• I wonder if speaking assessment is needed for the beginners of
English in Secondary Schools. They have very limited proficiency of
English speaking. It is very difficult for a teacher to elicit students’
responses for speaking assessment. (Teacher 4)
• For the convenience of construction and administration, I prefer
time-saving assessment tasks. They are not related with assessing students’
authentic communication ability. (Teacher 7)
• I want to learn effective and efficient method on the assessment. I
wish there were courses for the purpose of improving English teachers’
speaking proficiency and teaching skills. But I have seldom heard of a
training course for speaking assessment at the Teachers Training Centre
since I started teaching. (Teacher 7)
• I sometimes get ideas from ESL research studies. But considering
the Capeverdean classroom situation, I still hesitate to try them. I can’t
ignore reality such as large classes and excessive work in addition to face-
to-face classroom teaching. (Teacher 4)
• Speaking assessment tasks presented in research studies are too
difficult for my students in the EFL context. (Teacher 3)
28
To sum up, speaking assessment has not been conducted by the
Capeverdean teachers in this study from the perspective of language use and
communication. The questionnaire responses of teachers indicated that they were
not satisfied with the types of speaking assessment tasks and the ways they
conducted speaking assessment. Teachers perceived that “oral interview with the
students are the best task for assessing students’ oral proficiency”. (Teacher 4)
This leads us to conclude that if a greater importance is put on oral
assessment teacher will help students to focus on the verbal performance that they
are aware will be tested.
Difficulties caused by the educational system
Large classes
Each class in Capeverdean Secondary Schools consists of 38-40 students.
One teaching period lasts 50 minutes. Depending on the level taught a EFL teacher
may have up to seven (or eight) different classes. Thus, teachers have many
students in one class and it takes a long time for one teacher to finish even one
round of individual oral tests. All ten respondents referred to large classes as one of
the principal constraints on their attempts to assess students’ communication
ability.
• I have to assess 38 students within 45 minutes. I find it very difficult
to assess students’ communicative competence with so many students in
one class. If I consider students hesitation time for appropriate responses, it
will take four or five days to finish one round. (Teacher 3)
29
Excessive work in addition to classroom teaching
Ten participants identified excessive work in addition to classroom teaching
as a great obstacle to assess students’ communication ability. All the participants
were overloaded. Any additional works was considered a burden and stress itself
for Capeverdean teachers.
• I have five lessons every day as an English teacher. I have to take
care of my students as a head of class teacher. I need to cope with students’
problems promptly. I am already overloaded (Teacher 3).
• How I wish I could devote myself to only teaching. I want to be a
good English teacher, trying new methodology in my class. But I am losing
my identity as a teacher. I guess I am an office worker, rather than a teacher
(Teacher 4).
No retraining opportunities
Ten participants felt that there was inadequate training for teachers on
conducting speaking assessment. The lack of training in conducting speaking
assessment was initially a deterrent for Teacher 10 (at 46, the oldest participant in
the study) to use authentic communicative speaking assessment.
• I don’t know about diverse speaking assessment tasks to assess
students’ communicative competence (Teacher 10).
This finding seems to indicate that additional training, particularly for those
whose initial teacher training is not recent, is necessary if they are to be expected to
introduce new ways of assessing speaking in the classroom.
• Theory and practice is two different things. There is big gap
between theory and practice. I also feel frustrated by the reality which
doesn’t allow me to conduct authentic speaking assessment for my students
(Teacher 5).
30
Difficulties caused by the teachers
Teachers’ low English proficiency
Six participants reported that teachers’ low English proficiency would limit
their assessing students’ communicative competence.
• If I have a good command of English, it is much easier to elicit
students’ utterances and measure their communicative competence level. I
have no confidence in spoken English. I have difficulty in judging
grammaticality and acceptance of students’ unexpected responses (Teacher
1).
On the other hand, one respondent expressed a different opinion.
• I am not a fluent speaker of English. Students’ English level is not
so high. I think my English is good enough to assess students’
communicative competence (Teacher 4).
Nine of the ten participants referred to elicitation as a constraint. There are
several elicitation techniques. In the case of Secondary School, teachers are using
only one task for speaking assessment. Questions are designed to ask for routine
and typical answers.
• It is difficult to elicit various responses (Teacher 4).
• I am not a native speaker. I don’t have native speaker intuition about
grammaticality and social appropriateness of students’ responses. I have 38
students to be assessed, per class, and I teach seven classes, so I can’t assign
one student enough time to judge their communicative competence. I am
scoring after listening to students’ two or three responses. I don’t trust my
subjective judgments on students’ communicative competence. I sometimes
feel guilty (Teacher 3).
This chapter illustrated the findings from the analyses of data.
Several types of such non-authentic speaking assessment tasks used by
Capeverdean teachers were identified through this study.
Firstly, teachers used speaking assessment tasks which would stress
students less. As beginners in English, many students in Capeverdean EFL
classrooms had a very small vocabulary and a limited number of English structures.
Thus, they found assessment of their speaking by the teacher to be very stressful.
31
Secondly, teachers tried to lower students’ affective filter (Krashen and
Terrell, 1984) by minimizing the effects of unpredictable factors and anxiety.
“Performers with optimal attitudes have a lower affective filter” (Krashen and
Terrell, 1984:38). It will encourage students to interact with teachers with
confidence. Capeverdean students felt intimidated by unfamiliarity with the test
type. And also lack of preparation for the test seemed to lead them not to reflect in
their performance the best that they are capable of.
Thirdly, teachers used time-saving speaking assessment tasks designed for
the convenience of construction and administration because they taught large
classes for relatively short periods of time and were already overloaded with
excessive work in their school. They felt burdened by speaking assessment.
Lastly, teachers used the speaking assessment tasks which did not demand
them to take the role of an interviewer. Such assessment tasks helped teachers
function as a rater only, scoring students’ responses on the basis of their
promptness and the degree of preparation.
Teachers’ perceptions of theory of speaking assessment
This study also indicated that teachers were not equipped with an adequate
theory of communicative speaking assessment. As a consequence, the teachers had
little confidence in conducting speaking assessment. Nor had the “backwash effect”
of assessment on teaching been perceived by the teachers in designing speaking
assessment. As Bachman (1990) highlighted, positive “backwash” will result when
the assessment procedures reflect the skills and abilities that are taught in the
course. However, speaking assessment in Secondary Schools appeared not to be
tied to the instructional goals in content.
As a result, it was a “one-off” as one-time test only.
In addition, this study revealed the practical constraints in conducting
authentic speaking assessment in the contexts of the Capeverdean EFL classroom
and educational system. Most of the teachers in the study appeared frustrated by
the big gap between theory and practice. Participants mentioned constraints in
conducting communicative speaking assessment, such as large classes and time-
consuming, excessive work in addition to classroom teaching, lack of training in
32
conducting speaking assessment, lack of effective and efficient assessment
instruments, difficulty in eliciting students’ responses. Consequently, most of the
teachers simply did not venture to try communicative speaking assessment while
others gave it up after a brief try.
One teacher, when responding to the questionnaire indicated that she used
picture description to elicit students’ responses and endured the students’ hesitation
in making their appropriate responses.
33
Chapter five: RECOMMENDATIONS
Testing is one of the biggest problems that language teachers come across
regarding assessment. Some teachers take written tests as an exclusive measure to
grade students. Many teachers simply do not make any comment on the answers of
the students on the test when they deliver the test, so students do not know exactly
what they did right or wrong. Sometimes they just underline some words and the
students do not know if what was underlined was because it was right or because it
was wrong. They are not adequately trained to write tests. It is often the case that
while claiming that language teaching should be taught communicatively, for lack
of expertise we are assessing on skills other than speaking.
This study showed that Capeverdean teachers agreed with the necessity of
speaking assessment because it motivates students to develop their communicative
competencies. Most teachers expressed a strong desire to learn how speaking
assessment can be effectively and efficiently administered in the Capeverdean EFL
classroom context.
This study also brought out another factor that may be specific to
Capeverdean English teachers; Capeverdean teachers are overloaded with
excessive work in addition to classroom teaching. It was revealed that Capeverdean
teachers were frustrated by this reality of Capeverdean Secondary Schools. If this
situation is to be relieved, educational administrators need to show greater
sensitivity to the teachers’ complaints of excessive workload and to reflect
teachers’ point of view in their decision- making.
In response to teachers’ concern it is recommended that teachers need:
• assistance and encouragement in trying new assessment tools;
• continued support (in service training) for teachers who may need
help with communicative assessment;
• training to better inform about the most appropriate educational
theories and attitudes.
• adequate materials, i.e.the speaking assessment tasks suggested for
EFL contexts.
This can be achieved by conducting in-service teacher education programs,
in which teachers have opportunities to retrain and refresh themselves in
34
communicative speaking assessment. Thus, it is suggested here that Capeverdean
teacher researchers develop their own appropriate version of the communicative
speaking assessment suitable for their EFL classroom situations.
Capeverdean teachers need to be aware of the shift in social and educational
needs. According to the law, all the teachers in Capeverdean Secondary Schools
are required, by the Ministry of Education, to conduct speaking assessment in their
English language classes, and the students that take the National Exams (students
that are not included in the system), are required to do a formal oral exam, with a
constituted jury. These oral exams are worth fifty per cent of students’ final grade.
However students that are in the educational system do a national written test that
is called PGN (Prova Global Nacional) and are not required to take a formal oral
test due to the assumption that they are tested throughout the cycle. Therefore,
teachers need to make conscious and persistent efforts to introduce more
communicative speaking assessment into their classrooms and to be equipped with
some measurement tools to evaluate their students’ oral proficiency.
It is believed that teachers’ perceptions of the feasibility of a
communicative assessment innovation in the Capeverdean EFL context are crucial
in determining the ultimate success or failure of that innovation. As Frymier (1987)
mentions, teachers are central to changes in any attempt to improve education.
Compared with CLT Capeverdean Secondary Schools, communicative speaking
assessment has received little attention among Capeverdean Secondary Schools.
However, the interdependence of communicative teaching and communicative
assessment should not be ignored by the Capeverdean teachers.
However, our time and energy is limited and students often do not make
fineline judgments between assessments for different purposes. For students,
assessment is assessment! Therefore a given set of assessment tasks has to perform
double duty. This is one of the greatest challenges teachers face. How can
assessment be designed to provide sufficient feedback to enable a student to learn
from it while at the same time accurately portraying achievement for (normally) an
external audience?
If we look at the time spent on assessment as staff members, I fear it is
skewed dramatically in favour of the summative. An emphasis on formative aspects
35
is undermined by the fact that students receive information about their work at the
times at which they are least likely to be able to benefit from helpful comments:
once the semester has ended or once there teaching has ceased on the topic.
Assessment should not be distracted by the technicalities of grading!
Many teachers in Secondary schools take students learning time to correct
tests in the classrooms while they should be teaching. This happens especially at
the end of third trimester with the students of twelfth grade. After the “Prova Geral
Interna , teachers feel that the only thing that have to do is correcting papers, even
if they had not covered all the syllabus they were supposed to teach. Some more
conscious teachers keep preparing students for Prova Global Nacional. We should
avoid spending time on tasks that do not contribute to student learning. The
marking of terminal assessments, unlike the setting of such assignments, rarely
contributes to the students’ future learning. We should find ways of minimising
how much time we spend on it.
There are a number of key strategies we need to consider regarding the
assessment. These strategies include:
• Maximising the use of language
• assessment tasks that involve students in meaningful learning and
adopting deep approaches to their study.
• learning from each other.
• rich, detailed, descriptive feedback.
5.1 Criteria for the design of assessment tasks
Well-designed assessment tasks:
1. are authentic and set in a realistic context (ie. oriented towards the
world external to the course itself)
2. are worthwhile learning activities in their own right. (ie. each
separate act of assessment can be credibly regarded as a worthwhile
contribution to learning)
3. permit a holistic rather than a fragmented approach, (eg. engage
students in the whole of a process rather than a particular puzzle)
36
4. are not repetitive for either student or assessor. Assessment-related
work is a productive use of time for all those involved. (There are some
limited situations in which practice, which might appear to be repetitive,
can be justified.)
5. prompt student self-assessment. (ie. the range of assessment tasks
leaves students better equipped to engage in their own self-assessment now
and in the future. They shift the emphasis from looking to teaching staff for
judgements to students looking to themselves and the nature of the task.)
6. are sufficiently flexible for students to tailor them to their own
needs and interests
7. are not likely to be interpreted by students in a way fundamentally
different to those of the designer
8. do not make assumptions about the subject matter or the learner
which are irrelevant to the task and which are differentially perceived by
different groups of students (e.g. use of unnecessarily gender-specific
examples, assumptions about characteristics, etc.)
If we assess badly, then students will learn badly, no matter what good we
are doing in your teaching.
All these said we want to introduce some alternative tools for
communicative assessment to help students to foster their learning process and
therefore develop the communicative skills that are so important in their daily live.
5.2. Alternative Tools for Assessment
It is generally perceived that oral testing is difficult (Jones, 1977) and that it is a
perplexing problem for many language teachers (Nagata, 1995). The main obstacles
cited by Capeverdean English teachers included a lack of effective and efficient
assessment instruments. Capeverdean teachers found that there were no prescribed,
ready-made assessment tools for communicative competence. They also found it
difficult to balance content and language when scoring an oral exam. Some obstacles
had little to do with pedagogical issues; teachers included large classes and a lack of
time to conduct speaking assessments.
It seems that teachers need to have assistance and encouragement in using more
communicative assessment. The accurate measurement of oral ability takes considerable
37
time and effort to obtain valid and reliable results. Nevertheless, where backwash is an
important consideration, the investment of such time and effort may be considered
necessary. In the following section some alternative assessment tools for communicative
competence are presented. These tools and the corresponding information are presented
both to inform and encourage EFL teachers to increase their knowledge and adapt the
practices as useful and effective.
5.2.1. Portfolios
Definition: “A purposeful collection of student work that exhibits the
student’s efforts, progress and achievements in one or more areas. The collection
must include student participation in selecting contents, the criteria for selection,
the criteria for judging merit and evidence of student self-reflection.” (Paulson,
Paulson, Meyer 1991)
38
Background and Purpose
Portfolios are concrete and somewhat personal expressions of growth and
development. The following elements, abstracted from artist portfolios, are
common to all portfolios and, taken together, distinguish them from other
assessment tools: work of high quality, accumulated over time, chosen (in part) by
the student.
These defining features also indicate assessment goals for which portfolios are
appropriate.
Why use portfolio assessment?
“Portfolios have encouraged my students to take more responsibility for their
learning. For instance, they evaluate their own work, deciding which pieces of
writing deserve to be called “the best” (…) has taught my students to set their
goals. But most important, have helped my students discover and define themselves
as readers and writers.” (Cora Five, Learning 93, February page 48)
Portfolio Assessment:
• Matches assessment to teaching
The products that are assessed are mainly products of classwork, and cannot
be separateded from class activities like test items.
• Has clear goals.
Teachers and students decide on at the beginning of instruction and
therefore the goals are clear to everybody.
• Gives a profile of learner abilities.
Depth: It enables students to show quality work, which is done without
pressure and time constraints, and with the help of resources, reference materials
and collaboration with others.
Breadth: A wide range of skills, listening, speaking reading and writing,
are demonstrated in a portfolio.
Growth: It shows efforts to improve and develop not only communicative
competencies, but also writing skills. By doing a portfolio students demonstrate
progress over time.
39
It is a tool for assessing a variety of skills. Oral as well as written skills
and graphic products can easily be included.
Develops awareness of own learning. Students have to reflect on their
own progress and the quality of their work in relation to known goals.
Caters to individuals in the heterogeneous class. Since it is open-ended,
students can show work on their own level. Since there is choice, it caters to
different learning styles and allows expression of different strengths.
Develops social skills. Assess students on work done together, in pairs or
groups, on projects and assignments.
Develops independent and active learners. Students must select and
justify portfolio choices; monitor progress and set learning goals.
Can improve motivation for learning and thus students can improve
their communicative competencies. Empower students to prove communicative
competencies can be achieved through motivation.
It is an efficient tool for demonstrating learning. Different kinds of
products and records of progress fit conveniently into one package; changes over
time are clearly shown.
Provides opportunity for student-teacher dialogue. Enables the teacher
to get to know each and every student. Promotes joint goal-setting and negotiation
of grades.
40
Before asking students to start a portfolio we must specify the portfolio
content
Specify what, and how much, has to be included in the portfolio - both core
and options (it is important to include options as these enable self-expression and
independence).
Specify for each entry how it will be assessed. The students should be
acquainted with the scoring guides/rating scales that will be used before
performing the task.
Since this paper is focussed on communicative aspects, here are some
examples of questions that help students reflect upon their speaking, listening, and
viewing experiences include the following:
• Which speaking, listening, and viewing activities did you participate in this
week?
• Which did you enjoy/dislike? Why?
• Which oral activities did you find most difficult? Why? Did you solve the
difficulties? How?
• In which speaking activity do you think you did your best? What makes you
think so?
• What type of speaking activities would you like to learn to do better?
(questions adapted from www,sasked.gov.sk.html)
By answering these questions students will be able fill in their speaking
section of the portfolio without any problems.
Our best insurance against unreasonable “help” or plagiarism is to:
a. require portfolio content to be based on work done in class.
b. clarify that it is easy for the teacher to distinguish between a student’s
own work and an imported piece on an entirely different level.
c. give clear guidelines to the students about the goals and criteria for
excellence in a specific task. For example, downloading material, however
colourful, from the Internet does not in itself demonstrate language skills; it is what
the student can do with the source that counts (e.g. summarize, compare different
points of view, adapt etc.).
41
5.2.2. Group and pair work
Teaching English as a Foreign Language involves developing a
relationship of trust in which expectations are discussed and process skills are
explicitly taught. As this trust grows, students will respond and interact voluntarily
and spontaneously with the lecturer and with peers (Feast, V, pers. comm. 12 May,
2005)
Our classes may be large but if we combine lecturing or tutoring with
activities that encourage our students to talk and interact, we will be able to give
more responsibility to students for their own learning. This requires a student-
centred learning approach to our teaching, with the focus being on our students and
their engagement in meaningful learning activities. A big part of these activities
includes student participation in class discussion, oral presentations and group
work
Cooperating with others, and sharing knowledge and experience can:
• make study more enjoyable
• build confidence in your students
• develop social skills and networks
• build problem-solving, communication and leadership skills.
Most students in Cape Verde feel anxious at some stage about speaking to a
class of their peers. This can be more difficult for foreign language students who
might have had little experience with public speaking, with being outspoken,
explicit or critical in the presence of their teachers and peers. Some may feel that
their English language skills are inadequate or they might fear “losing face”
Our students will therefore have different levels of confidence and we might
experience challenges in changing some behaviours, building confidence and in
dealing with personality clashes. Some students may:
• believe that group work and assessment do not truly reflect their
abilities
• have different beliefs about the relevance and benefits of discussion
and group work
42
• find it difficult to meet as a group for assignments - some students
live far from their classmates and have economic problems to take the
transport to meet their peers.
• not work as hard as others on their assessments.
• lack confidence in speaking out or seeming to criticise someone
else’s opinion
We should stimulate discussion in the classroom
In preparing our students to take a more active role in discussions you will
need to look at how we plan for those important first sessions. This is the time to
establish good relationships with students, to give them confidence to speak up and
take risks. Debate and critical discussion are fostered when individuals are
encouraged to have a say and when they feel safe about voicing opinions.
Here are some strategies for developing trust and encouraging participation
in discussions:
• Use ice-breakers, debates, short oral presentations, etc. to start
sessions.
• Show students how to vary their oral presentations. Offer them
guidance in organising the facts, giving background information leading to
the main points, offering more of a personal touch by stating viewpoints,
attitudes or by varying the style e.g. using repetition or descriptive phrases
and varying the voice, tone, maintaining eye contact etc.
• Value everyone’s contribution. You can do this with small non-
verbal gestures of recognition.
• Arrange discussion boards with more experienced local students or
with students from ISE or invite some Peace Corps Volunteers, offering
opportunities for socialising and networking. Lecturers can moderate
language use or award bonus points for participation.
• Use cartoons, visuals, animation and humour to stimulate
discussion.
We can foster an atmosphere of trust so that students can make mistakes
without fear of ridicule if you value all contributions and give positive
reinforcement and encouragement for participation. One way to ensure everyone
43
speaks at least once in a session is to ask students individually, at the end, to
describe the best piece of information learned Group-work skills
We have to clarify guidelines and teaching group-work skills specifically.
This is the first step in encouraging participation in group activities. We might also
try some of these:
• Ask each group to clarify the roles and responsibilities of its
members. Make sure you review these to check that the workloads are
equitable.
• Ensure the groups know how to negotiate tasks for each member.
• Vary the roles that members have in group activities e.g. facilitator,
technical expert, reporter etc.
• Call for group votes on issues, after discussions with a partner or
their group.
• Provide opportunities for spokespeople to ask questions on behalf of
the group.
• Students may overcome their fear of speaking to a class if they
practise first in small groups or pairs and then present the information to the
class together.
• Encourage the development of study groups, starting them off with
prepared sign-up sheets.
5.2.2.1. Assessing and evaluating group work
Introducing group or pair-work assessment and evaluation tasks can lead to
disharmony if not approached sensitively. Staff and students find it problematic at
times when the workload is unfairly distributed or when some students are seen to
be claiming the work of others in their group as their own.
Give your students time to think about the processes and skills they have used
in group-work activities, like the role they played, the effectiveness of the group
and how the members collaborated to achieve their objectives. Point out the value
of teamwork and the skills learned through such efforts. Here are some other
strategies:
• Ensure the groups understand the assessment criteria and have had
an opportunity to discuss them.
44
• Give marks not only on the final product but also on the group
process. Ensure your students see the link between assessment criteria and
the development of professional competencies eg. task and time
management, evidence of collaborative behaviour, creative problem solving
etc.
• Ask groups to submit “leadership logs”, meeting agendas and
minutes to describe the way the team worked together to complete the task
and to ensure equal contribution.
• Consider timetabling occasional 10 minute group meetings (rather
than meeting with individuals), as part of the review process. This would
have the added advantage of giving you face-to-face access to more
students.
Many teachers are comfortable assessing the product of group work. This is
normally a piece of work that represents the outcome of the group’s efforts. The
type of marking required to assess a product would be similar to that used on an
individual assignment. Decisions are made to either split a product mark between
group members or give individual marks.
Quite different is the assessment of the group work process. This is an
assessment in how well the students work together in achieving their goal.
Assessing group work process, and giving feedback to students on their progress, is
necessary if students are to develop collaborative skills. To guarantee that our
students are able to function collaboratively as professionals we need to include the
assessment of group work processes.
It is probably best to have a component of the assessment task contributing
to assessing, and giving feedback on collaboration processes.
Besides portfolios, pair and group work, there is another tool that can be
used everyday and is of great importance in importance in assessing
communicative competence. One can even say that these tools are the ones that
show the communicative competence. We are talking about aural and oral test
assessment.
The following chapter will show how important aural and oral assessment is
in language acquisition and how we can implement them in EFL classrooms.
45
5.2.3. Aural/ oral Assessment
We can foster an atmosphere of trust so that students can make mistakes
without fear of ridicule if we value all contributions and give positive
reinforcement and encouragement for participation. One way to ensure everyone
speaks at least once in a session is to ask students individually, at the end, to
describe the best piece of information learned.
Communication has become fully accepted as an essential and major
component of the “product” of language teaching, but it has not yet been given
more than a token place, as an essential and major component of the “process”. A
logical extension of the argument would suggest that if communication is the aim,
then it should be the major element in the process. (Allright, 1979, p.167)
Allright’s call for the centrality of performance is fundamental to teaching
language communicatively. Brown (1994) recognizes “students’ eventual need to
apply classroom learning to heretofore unrehearsed contexts in the real world”
(p29). Materials need to provide the contexts in which knowledge and use, or
learning and acquisition can be tested, applied and evaluated, as Ellis recognized,
communicative opportunity is both necessary and sufficient for acquisition to take
place; the contribution of language teaching materials must be to provide
this.(1982, p.75)
Effective evaluators are astute observers who use a variety of monitoring
techniques to collect information about students’ knowledge, skills, attitudes,
values, and language competencies. Well organized, concise, and accessible
records accommodate the large quantities of data likely to be collected, and assist
teachers’ decision making and reporting.
Some effective techniques for monitoring student progress in the areas of
aural/oral and literacy include the following:
• Make video and audio recordings of a variety of formal and
informal oral language experiences, and then assess these according to pre-
determined criteria which are based upon student needs and curriculum
objectives.
Teachers may say that they do not have the necessary material at school
therefore they cannot record students. But teachers can tell the schools’
46
administrators that these equipments are required for assessment and show them
the importance of these equipments and ask to have them as a school material.
• Use checklists as concise methods of collecting information, and
rating scales or rubrics to assess student achievement.
• Record anecdotal comments to provide useful data based upon
observation of students’ oral activities.
• Interview students to determine what they believe they do well or
areas in which they need to improve.
• Have students keep portfolios of their dated writing samples, and
language abilities checklists and records.
• Keep anecdotal records of students’ reading and writing activities
and experiences.
• Have students write in reader response journals.
• Confer with students during the writing and reading processes, and
observe them during peer conferences.
It can be difficult to provide students a record of how they were assessed,
when it comes to aural/ oral evaluation. But if teachers’ main goal in language
teaching is communication they should not let drawbacks overcome their
determination of doing their best as language teachers. Oral tests are far more
difficult to grade then written tests, especially when the classes are very large.
Speaking and Listening: Checklists, rating scales, and anecdotal notes
used throughout the lessons can provide information about the students’ oral
progress. Oral presentations and incidental observations provide opportunities to
gather information about students’ listening and speaking abilities. A rubric which
includes performance criteria can be useful for setting a mark for each student.
Students should be aware of the expectations at each level.
Speaking or listening may be more heavily emphasized depending upon the
particular unit or activities. Teachers, possibly in collaboration with their students,
will determine the way that the unit will be evaluated; however, it is important that
students know from the beginning how they will be assessed and evaluated.
47
Speaking
Oral communication is the main goal of the EFL and provides the base for
growth in reading, writing, and listening abilities. Oral consists of both verbal and
nonverbal communication. It is important that teachers recognize that nonverbal
communication is culture specific, and be aware of the differences that may exist
across cultures when students express themselves nonverbally.
As learning and applying the skills of oral English are so closely related, the
classroom should be a place where the use of spoken language is sensitively
supported and where active listening is developed and valued. Talk enables
students to make connections between what they know and what they are learning,
and listening helps them to acquire knowledge and explore ideas.
Talk can be immediate and spontaneous, or planned and deliberate.
Confidence and enthusiasm are critical factors in oral language development, and
because much oral language is immediate, it involves taking risks. Student learning
is most effective when there is a relationship of mutual trust, when students’ oral
language is accepted and a variety of communication styles are accommodated in
the classroom, and when students have frequent opportunities to talk in formal and
informal situations.
Functions of Talk
Talk serves two important functions in the classroom: the social and the
intellectual. Students’ oral language skills develop in conjunction with their
expanding social awareness and their ability to reflect upon and reconstruct
experience. As a social function, talk helps students adjust to ideas and ideas are
reformulated to facilitate student understanding. Within this function, students
share information and ideas with listeners by speaking informally and sharing
through conversation. Talk is also used to form relationships through language.
48
Interact Socially
• use language and ideas appropriate to the situation
• respond to listeners’ verbal and nonverbal cues, restate ideas, and
ask questions to clarify understandings
• use language to create images and to produce an emotional response
• acknowledge and be sensitive to others’ viewpoints.
Develop Self-awareness
• examine and explore personal points of view
• identify flaws in their own and others’ reasoning
• determine what it is they need to know
• find effective ways of supporting their own opinions.
• reflect to determine if their language is appropriate to their listeners.
All these said about speaking it is imperative to talk about listening since
listening and speaking are not discrete elements. People cannot interact without
listening; therefore the following session will describe what listening is how to
develop effective listening abilities.
Listening
Listening is an essential part of the communication process. Students spend
the majority of each school day listening and much of what students know is
acquired through listening. It is essential that students have opportunities to
practise the behaviours of effective listeners.
Listening is more than hearing; comprehending spoken language involves
process-oriented thinking skills. Because listening involves the use of language and
thought, the ability to listen effectively develops as students’ language abilities
develop and mature.
Developing effective listening abilities cannot be left to chance. Active
listening experiences should be structured into daily English language arts
activities. Students learn to value listening when it is given a prominent role in the
English language arts classroom and when it is meaningfully integrated with their
speaking, writing, and reading experiences.
Exposure to oral English is very important for EFL students, who need to
hear the language spoken in meaningful contexts in order to acquire it. Their
49
receptive (listening) language abilities precede their expressive (speaking)
language abilities, so they need to spend a great deal of time listening before and as
they develop their speaking abilities.
Students become active listeners when they deliberately attend to the
speaker’s message with the intention of immediately applying or assessing the
ideas or information. For example, students may take notes if they wish to refer to
the information; they may offer words of agreement or ask questions if they are
part of a conversation; they may formulate questions to ask the speaker; or they
may evaluate the message, determining the speaker’s motive and what is fact and
what is opinion.
50
Chapter six: CONCLUSION
The intent of this paper was to identify the ways in which speaking
assessment is used in Capeverdean EFL classes; to investigate Capeverdean
teachers’ perceptions of the practical constraints in effectiveness assessing and to
suggest alternative communicative assessment tools.
This was done by literature review and field research.
The findings were that Capeverdean EFL teachers did not assess students’
oral proficiency from the perspective of language use and communication. This
fact was reflected in the types of speaking assessment tasks used by the
Capeverdean EFL teachers and in the ways they conducted speaking assessment.
Several types of such non-authentic speaking assessment tasks used by the
Capeverdean teachers were identified through this study.
This study revealed the practical constraints in conducting communicative
speaking assessment in the Capeverdean EFL classroom, the constraints were:
large classes, lack of training in conducting speaking assessment, lack of effective
and efficient instruments and difficulty in eliciting students’ responses
Therefore it is recommended: to assist and encourage teachers to use new
innovative tools for communicative assessment in their Capeverdean EFL
classrooms. Furthermore, Capeverdean teachers are recommended to make
conscious and persistent efforts to introduce more communicative speaking
assessment in spite of practical difficulties, to be aware of the shift in social and
educational need. If it is not possible to avoid the fear of speaking assessment that
students have, teachers can at least make students feel more confident when taking
an oral test, by training students in every language competencies, and by using the
English in the classes everyday.
On the school level, much can be done without the need of tremendous
resources to implement the alternative tools for communicative assessment.
Checklists can be used to collect data for listening and oral participation. Listening
activities can be more enjoyable when done through songs, i.e. put the lyrics in
order, fill in the gaps etc. English coordination meetings are an excellent space to
discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the communicative assessment and
51
what can be done to make the process smooth not only for teachers but also for
students. Teachers who are implementing the innovative tools can share with
colleagues and therefore motivate them to do the same. Schools can share
experiences on their achievement in communicative assessment and profit from
each other gains, doing what results, adapting to students reality and avoiding the
critical parts.
This research paper is intended to serve as a platform for further research.
This can include the following topics:
1. Portfolio assessment: to update the data on non-traditional
approaches to instruction and assessment, portfolio use show the greatest
promise in enhancing diverse dimensions of learning and developing
multiple intelligences as well as promoting learner autonomy. And also to
find ways to include the whole educational system community, among
educators, parents, policymakers, and the business community involve in
this process.
2. Oral assessment: to prepared students for oral examinations and to
discuss some of the positive and negative aspects of the process
3. How to motivate students for autonomous learning? Students need
to feel motivated and responsible for their learning, which is the only way
to get them involved in learning process.
52
REFERENCES
Allwright, R. 1979. 'Language learning through communication practice'. In
Brumfit,
asian-efl-journal/dec_03_Asian EFL Journal: L2 Language Assessment in the
Korean Classroom
Bachman, L. and Palmer, A. S. (1984). Some comments on the terminology of
language testing. In: Rivera, C. (ed.), Communicative Competence
Approaches to Language proficiency Assessment: Research and Application.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 34-43.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Basanta, C. (1995) Coming to grips with progress testing: Some Guidelines for its
design, English Teaching Forum, 33/ 3
Bobda, A. Testing Pronunciation, English Teaching Forum, 3/ 31
Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods. London: Allyn and Bacon.
Bostwick, R. M. and Gakuen, K. (1995). Evaluating Young EFL Learners:
Problems and Solutions. In Brown, J. D. and Yamashita, S. O. (eds.), JALT
Allied Materials Language Testing in Japan. Tokyo: The Japan Association
for Languge Teaching: 57-65.
Bowman, B. et. al (1992) Teaching English as a Foreign Language To Large
Multilevel Class Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Washington DC
Brown, H. D. (1987) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, 2nd edition:
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall
Brown, H.D. (1994). Teaching by Principles. Prentice Hall.
Canale, M. (1983). A communicative approach to language proficiency assessment
in a minority setting. In Rivera, C. (ed), Communicative Competence
Approaches to Language Proficiency Assessment: Research and Application.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 107-123.
53
Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches
to second language teaching and testing. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1, 1:
1-47.
Carrol, Brendan J. et. al (1985) Making Your Own Language Tests, UK: Pergamon
Press Ltd.
Celce - Murcia, M. (ed)(1991) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language
2nd Edition. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T.
Press.
Cross, D. (1992) A Practical Handbook Of Language Teaching. Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice Hall.
David Boud Presentation to the Conference 'Effective Assessment at University',
University of Queensland, 4-5 November 1998.
Davies, A. (1983). The validity of Concurrent Validation. In Hughes, A. and
Porter, D. (eds.), Current Developments in Language Testing. London:
Department of Linguistic Science University.
Davies, A. (1990) Principles Of Language Testing. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to
Sociological Methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Falvey, P. et. al. (1986) “Matching Teaching with Testing” in Holden, Susan ed.
Techniques of Teaching from Theory To Practice, Bologna: The British
Council, Great Britain
Finocchiaro, Mary and Christopher Brumfit, 3rd Edition (1985) The Functional -
Notional Approach, From Theory To Practice, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Five,Cora (1993) Tracking Writing And Reading Progress, Learning 93, February
Frymier, J. (1987). Bureaucracy and the neutering of teachers. Phi Delta Kappen
69, 9-14.
Gower, R. and S. Walters (1983) Teaching Practice Handbook A Reference Book
for EFL Teachers in Training. Oxford: Heinemann
54
Harrison, A. (1987) A Language Testing Handbook, London: Macmillan
Publishers Ltd London and Basingstoke
Hartley, L. and Sporing, M. (1999). Teaching communicatively: assessing
communicatively? Language Learning Journal, 19, 73-79.
Heaton, J. B. (1991) 4th Edition Writing English Language Tests, New York:
Longman Handbooks For Language Teachers
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hughes, A. (1991) Testing For Language Teachers, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Hymes, D. H. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In Huxley,
R. and Ingram, E. (eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods, 3-28.
New York: Academic Press.
Jones, R. L. (1977). “Testing: A Vital Connection”. In Philips, J. K. (ed), The
Language Connection, 237- 65. Skokie, 3: National Textbook Co.
Kellough, R. D. (1994) A Resource Guide for Teaching, New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company
Kelly, P. (1980). From innovation to adaptability: The changing perspective of
curriculum development. In Galton, M. (ed.), Curriculum change: The
lessons of a decade, 65-80. Leicester, England: Leicester University Press.
Knoerr, A.P. A professional evaluation model for assessment. “Joint Mathematics
Meetings!” San Diego, California: January 8-11, 1997.
Knoerr, A.P. Authentic assessment in mathematics: a professional evaluation
model. Ninth Annual Lilly Conference on College Teaching — West, Lake
Arrowhead, California: March 7-9, 1997
Krashen, S. and Terrell. T. (1984). The Natural Approach. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kumar, R. (1996). Research Methodology: A step-by-step Guide for Beginners.
Melbourne: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New
York: Oxford University Press.
55
Li, D. (1998). “It's always More Difficult Than You Plan and Imagine”: Teachers'
Perceived Difficulties in Introducing the Communicative Approach in South
Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 4.
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Lluda, E. (2000). On competence, proficiency, and communicative language
ability. International Journal Of Applied Linguistics, 10, 1.
Madeson, H. S. (1980). Selecting Appropriate Elicitation Techniques for Oral
Proficiency Tests. In John, A. S. (ed.), Directions in Language Testing.
Singapore: Singapore University Press, 87-99.
Madsen, H. J. (1983) Techniques In Testing, New York: Oxford University Press
Matthews, A., M. Spratt and L. Dangerfield (Ed) (1986) At The Chalkface,
Pratical Tecniques in Language Teatching, London: Edward Arnold Ltd, 41
Bedford Square, London WC 1B 3DQ
Maykut, P. and Morehourse, R. (1994). Beginning Qualitative Research. London:
The Falmer Press.
McDonough, J. and McDonough, S. (1997). Research Methods For English
Language Teachers. London: Arnold.
Morrow, K. E. (1977). Techniques of evaluation for a notional syllabus. London:
University of Reading Centre for Applied Language Studies.
Nagata, H. (1995). Testing Oral Ability: ILR and ACTFL Oral Proficiency
Interviews. JALT Applied Materials, 12, 108-118.
Nakamura, Y. (1993). Measurement of Japanese college students' English Speaking
ability in a classroom setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, International
Christian University, Tokyo.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Paulston, C. B. (1974). Linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL
Quarterly, 8, 347-362.
Porter, D. (1983). The Effect of Quantity of Context on the Ability to make
Linguistic Predictions: a Flaw in a Measure of General Proficiency. In
56
Hughes, A. and Porter, D. (eds.), Current Developments in Language
Testing. London: Academic Press.
Powney, J. and Watts, M. (1987). Interviewing in educational research. London:
Routledge.
Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to Social Research. London: Sage Publications.
Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language
teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rivera, C. (ed.) (1984). Communicative Competence Approaches to Language
Proficiency Assessment: Research and Application. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Rivers, Wilga (1981) Teaching Foreign Language Skills, 2nd edition Chicago: The
University of Chicago press.
Savignon, S. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL
Quarterly, 25, 261-277.
Spolsky, B. (1975). Language testing - The Problem of validation. In Palmer, L.
and Spolsky, B. (eds.), Papers on language testing 1967-1974, 147-153.
Washington, DC.
Spolsky, B. (1985). Fourteen Years on - Later Thoughts on Overall Language
Proficiency. In Hughes, A. and Porter. (eds.), Current Developments in
Language Testing. London: Academic Press.
Taylor, B. P. (1983). Teaching ESL: Incorporating a communicative, student-
centred component. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 69-88.
Vallejo, P. (1979) Manual De Avaliação Escolar. Coimbra: Livraria Almeida
Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative Language Testing. London: Prentice-Hall.
Weir, C. J. (1993). Understanding and developing language tests. London:
Prentice-Hall.
Whaba, Essam: In Search Of Better Testing Techniques, English Teaching Forum,
2/32, pp 53
Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Authenticity and autonomy in ELT. ELT Journal, 50,
67-68.
Wiersma, W. (1995). Research Methods in Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
57
www TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 4, April 2003. /iteslj.org/ Articles/ Lambert-
Speaking Tests. Lambert - Recording Speaking Tests for Oral Assessment (I-
TESL-J)
www. portoeditora.pt
Appendix
Appendix 1 …………………… Five Key Characteristics of Portfolio Assessment
Appendix 2 …………………… Reflective and Project Portfolio
Appendix 3 ……………………. Example of a Portfolio
Appendix 4 …………………….. Test Role Cards
Appendix 5 …………………….. Evaluating Listening Activity
Appendix 6 …………………….. Sistema de Avaliação
Appendix 7 ………………….…. Participants’ questionnaire and Interview
questions
Appendix 8 …………………… Table 1 - Background of Questionnaire
Participants
Table 2 - Background of Interview
Informants
Table 3 - Speaking assessment tasks used by
Capeverdean teachers
APPENDIX- 1 Five Key Characteristics of Portfolio Assessment
When implementing a portfolio assessment program in the classroom, it is
useful to think about what makes a successful portfolio. Moya and O'Malley (1994)
identified five characteristics of an exemplary ELL (English Language Learner)
portfolio: it is (1) comprehensive, (2) predetermined and systematic, (3) tailored,
(4) informative, and (5) authentic. The following discussion of Moya and
O'Malley's five key portfolio characteristics takes a number of issues into account.
(1) Comprehensive. A portfolio is comprehensive if there is both breadth
and depth to the artefacts contained in it. One or more teachers, members of a
school-wide committee, or members of a district-wide committee may be involved
in determining what merits a work being included in the portfolio. It is also
important to have artefacts that ESL and regular classroom teachers can easily
collect and manage.
The following questions can help determine if the contents of an ELL's portfolio
are comprehensive:
• Have the items in the portfolio been carefully selected to show the
range of language and literacy skills the student has mastered as well as the
ELL's growth in content knowledge and skill?
• Do the items in the portfolio indicate broad as well as "deep"
knowledge?
• Do the items indicate the student's mastery of higher-level thinking
skills?
• Do the items illustrate any special talent or skill that the student
possesses?
• Are there examples of cross-curricular artefacts in the portfolio?
• Are there artefacts that represent both formal and informal
assessments?
• ELLs need to be taught both oral and written English language
skills. Is there evidence of oral language development as well as that of
literacy skills?
• Are there artefacts that illustrate the ELL's appreciation for his or her
rich cultural heritage?
(2) Predetermined and Systematic. A portfolio is predetermined when its
purposes, aims, and recommended artefacts have been established in advance. It is
important for all of the educators to work together to determine a systematic way of
gathering artefacts for the portfolio.
The following questions can help determine if the portfolio policy is
predetermined and if the contents are systematically gathered.
• Are the purposes and aims of the portfolio clear and well
articulated?
• Have these purposes and aims been communicated to all of the
relevant stakeholders?
• Are the contents gathered on a regular basis?
• Does the portfolio represent the range and level of skills that
students are expected to master -- e.g., the standards for the course of study?
• Have lists of potential portfolio contents been developed and agreed
upon by various stakeholders such as parents, teachers, and school
administrators? The adult stakeholders may wish to work together to
develop a portfolio contents checklist. There can be one checklist or several
different ones.
• Have the students developed their content checklist for the portfolio?
(3) Informative. A portfolio is informative if it conveys useful data about the
student's progress and achievement to the classroom teacher, other staff members,
parents, and the student him/herself. A writing sample taken at the beginning of the
year compared to one from the end of the year should give all stakeholders a clear
idea of the student's academic growth.
The following are questions that can help determine if stakeholders will find the
portfolio informative.
• What type of information does the portfolio provide the teachers?
Does the portfolio assist the teachers in making instructional decisions
pertaining to a student as well as a group of students?
• What type of information does the portfolio convey to parents? Do
the contents of the portfolio accurately display the student's skills and
achievements? (Any documents given to parents regarding portfolios should
be translated into the parents' primary language. Since all parents may not
be literate, teacher can transmit the information orally.)
• What type of information does the portfolio offer to Language
Learners themselves?
• Have rubrics been designed to help all stakeholders understand the
contents of the portfolio?
(4) Tailored. A model portfolio is crafted to meet specific objectives. The
specific objectives of a tailored portfolio are designed to meet the particular needs
of the student as well as the broader goals of the teacher, school, school district, or
territory where the student attends school. The process for determining the specific
contents of a classroom portfolio should be led by the classroom teacher, but might
also involve input and feedback from other stakeholders involved such as other
language teacher. For example, a classroom teacher might use a portfolio to
communicate a student's development and progress to other teachers.
These questions may help determine if a portfolio has been tailored to meet its
specific objectives.
• Is the portfolio tailored to meet applicable priorities and goals? For
example, if the portfolio is being used to display a student's annual
progress, does it clearly demonstrate that student's academic growth over
the year?
• Are there a variety of recommended items included in the student's
portfolio based on his or her specific English language and literacy levels?
• If students possess literacy skills in their primary language, are there
opportunities for them to demonstrate such knowledge and growth through
their portfolio?
• Does the portfolio at the very least provide a glimpse into the
student's rich cultural and linguistic heritage?
(5) Authentic. A portfolio is authentic if its artefacts derive from actual
classroom activities. The portfolio should include work resulting from tasks carried
out in the classroom. Such tasks should incorporate oral and written literacy
exercises designed to foster both academic skills and English language
development.
The following are questions that can help determine if portfolio contents are
authentic.
• Do artefacts in the portfolio represent authentic tasks conducted in
the classroom?
• Are the artefacts in the portfolio examples of purposeful work such
as a story the child has written, a thank you note to a classroom visitor, or a
personal budget?
• Has the ELL been involved in the selection of artefacts for inclusion
in the portfolio?
APPENDIX- 2 Reflective Portfolios.
In a reflective portfolio, students choose from a wide range of completed
work using carefully specified criteria. They are asked to explicitly consider their
progress over the length of the course, so early work which is flawed may
nonetheless be included to illustrate how far the student has progressed. A
reflective portfolio helps students assess their own growth.
The collection of portfolios can also help a teacher reflect on the strengths
and weaknesses of the course. It can point out strong links made by the students,
and indicate struggles and successes students had with different topics in the
course. It can further open the window to student attitudes and feelings.
This type of portfolio increase students' self-awareness of how their understanding
has developed requires that information about this understanding be collected by
the students as the course progresses. Keeping a journal for the course is a useful
supplement to the usual homework, class work, quizzes, and tests. For example,
students are asked to make a journal entry two or three times each week as they,
among other possibilities: reflect on their readings or problem sets, discuss
difficulties or successes in the course, clarify or connect concepts within the course
or with those in other courses, or reflect on their feelings toward the course in
general. The teacher collects and responds to the journals on a regular basis.
Near the end of the trimester, students are asked to prepare a reflective portfolio.
For example the assignment may say:
The purpose of this portfolio assignment is to allow you to highlight your
own selections of your work and give an analysis of them in your own words. I will
focus on two specific things in evaluating your portfolio: (1) an understanding of
some key concepts and (2) a self-awareness of your journey (where you started
from, where you went and where you are now).
Select three pieces of work from this semester to include in your portfolio.
These pieces can include journal writing, homework assignments, tests,
class worksheets, class notes, or any other pieces of work you have produced in this
class. Your analysis should explain your reasons for picking these pieces. As
examples, you might consider a selection which shows the development of your
understanding of one key concept, or a selection which shows your growing
appreciation of and proficiency with formal proofs, or a selection which shows
your connection of two or more key concepts.
The most important part of the portfolio is your reflection on why you
chose the pieces you did, how they show your understanding of some key
concept(s), and how they show a self-awareness of your journey through this class.
You should definitely write more than one paragraph but no more than five pages.
The portfolio is “X” % of your final grade.
Teacher may say that it is difficult to implement the portfolios in our
classrooms because we have large classes. But here we suggest the implementation
of portfolios in 3rd cycle where we usually have smaller classes. The collection of
reflective portfolios can serve as feedback of students’ English understanding and
growth through the course. It can sometimes also give us a glimpse of the joy of
learning, and thus the joy of teaching. We agree that it is harder work than grading
two tests per trimester but the results worth the hardworking.
Project Portfolios.
Project portfolios are one component of a "professional evaluation" model
of assessment. The other components are "licensing exams" for basic skills, small
but open-ended "exploration" projects, and targeted "reflective writing"
assignments. These different components, modelled on activities engaged in by
professionals, have been chosen to help students develop a more mature approach
to their study.
Students choose projects from lists provided for each unit of the course.
Completed projects are included in their project portfolio. This method of
assessment helps students identify their interests, produce work of high quality, and
tackle more ambitious assignments which may take several weeks to complete.
Collecting work from the entire course encourages students to look beyond the next
test or quiz.
The project portfolio corresponds to papers and other completed projects a
professional would include in his or her curriculum vitae. All students are required
to complete certain projects, while in other cases they choose from several topics.
Discuss what you learned from this project. In particular, has this project changed
how you think about vector spaces, and if so, in what way?
Project reports must include: a cover page with a title, author's name, and an
abstract; clear statements of problems solved, along with their solutions; a
discussion of what was learned and its relevance to the course; acknowledgement
of any assistance; and a list of references. Reports are usually between five and ten
pages long. They are evaluated on both course content and quality of presentation.
First and final drafts are used, especially early in the course when students are
learning what these projects entail.
For the typical project, students will have one week to produce a first draft
and another week to complete the final draft. Students may be working on two
different projects indifferent stages at the same time. Allowing for test breaks and
longer projects, a completed course portfolio will comprise seven to ten projects.
Students draw on this portfolio as part of a self-assessment exercise at the end of
the course. And more important students’ may feel highly motivated because it is
something that they will figure out ON THEIR OWN!
The first drafts of projects for the project portfolio are a rich source of
information on how students are thinking about important topics being covered in
the course. First drafts of project portfolios may highlight difficulties shared by
many students and thus influence teaching while a course is in progress. Reflecting
on completed portfolios can also lead to changing how we teach a course in the
future. The projects themselves may be improved or replaced by new ones. Special
topics which were previously presented to the entire class may be treated in
optional projects, leaving more class time for fundamental ideas. These projects
can also lead to more radical reorganization of a course.
The final drafts reveal more clearly their depth of understanding and degree
of mastery the chosen issue. We believe that these projects will help students
achieve a better conceptual understanding of important aspects of the course and
become more mature in presenting arguments. The discussion sections of their
reports offer students some chance for reflection.
One might conclude that reflective portfolio, journal writing, and the project
portfolio are all writing-intensive forms of assessment. Clarity, time and patience
are required of both teachers and students in working with assignments like these
which are unusual in Capeverdean classes.
The reflective portfolio is little more than a short paper at the end of the
trimester. The time is put in during the trimester as the teacher reads and responds
to the journals. Cycling through all the journals every few weeks is probably the
most efficient and least burdensome way of handling them.
Some students enjoy reflective writing while others may feel awkward
about it.
Teachers must also allow for reflections which may not be consistent with
the outcomes they desire.
Several techniques can make correcting first drafts of project portfolios
more efficient and effective. Comments which apply to many reports for a given
project can be compiled on a feedback sheet to which more specific comments may
be added for individual students. Peer review will often improve the quality of
written work. A conference with a student before his or her report is submitted may
make a second draft unnecessary. Students often need to complete several projects
before they fully appreciate the degree of thoroughness and clarity required in their
reports. Sharing examples of good student work from previous years can help
communicate these expectations.
There is no doubt that the use of portfolios as a communicative assessment
tool will promote students success in learning, will develop their autonomy,
responsibility and their organization skills. It will also make the assessment process
easier, since it will show students’ progress in a formative and summative
perspective.
APPENDIX 3
Example of a Portfolio
APPENDIX 4. Sample. Test Role Cards
Test Role Cards
Names
Ask each other about your own names, and your relatives' names.
Try to give as much information as you can.
Drinks
Ask each other about a drink that you like.
Try to give as much information as you can.
Food
Ask each other about your favourite foods.
Describe the ingredients and the recipe if you can.
Try to give as much information as you can.
Fashion
Ask each other about the clothes you are wearing now.
Try to give as much information as you can.
First Dates
Ask each other about your idea of a perfect date.
Try to give as much information as you can.
Scoring Rubric for Conversation Tests
Excellent (For the purposes of the speaking test in this category 17-20)
Presents ideas clearly. Is able to fluently express ideas and ask and answer
questions from classmates with ease. Is willing to take risks and test out new
language presented in a unit.
Good (16-14)
Presents ideas well enough to be understood. Is able to give brief answers to
questions from classmates. Takes some risks.
Satisfactory (13-10)
Speaks with some hesitation, but can communicate basic ideas. Shows hesitation in
understanding and responding to classmates' questions and comments.
Occasionally uses new vocabulary, but generally does not take risks.
Needs Improvement (0-9)
Attempts to speak, but has difficulty communicating basic ideas to classmates. Has
difficulty understanding classmates' questions and comments.
APPENDIX-5
Evaluating Listening Activity
TEXT: DATE:
CLASS: SKILLS
Nº/NAME Identifies
key words
Identifies
main ideas
Reproduces
sequence
Selects/uses
information
from the text
Understands
attitude, points
of view,
emotions, and
intentions
Relates the
text to
his/her
personal
view and
experience
TOTAL
VG - Very Good; G - Good; S - Satisfying; B - Bad; VB - Very Bad
APPENDIX 6
Some excerpts of the Evaluation System of Secondary School
Decreto-Lei n°42/03/20
de 20 de Outubro
Lei de Bases do Sistema Educativo-Lei nº 103/III/90, de 29 de Dezembro, na nova
redacção dada pela Lei nº 113/V/99, de 18 de Outubro — determina que o ensino
secundário dá continuidade ao ensino básico e permite o desenvolvimento dos
conhecimentos e aptidões obtidos no ciclo de estudos precedente e a aquisição de
novas capacidades intelectuais e aptidões físicas necessárias à intervenção criativa
na sociedade.
O ensino secundário visa ainda possibilitar a aquisição das bases científico-
tecnológicas e culturais necessárias ao procedimento dos estudos e ingresso na vida
activa e, em particular permite, pelas vias técnica e artística, a aquisição de
qualificações profissionais para inserção no mercado de trabalho.
Artigo 3°
(Âmbito e objectivos da Avaliação)
2. A avaliação, tem como objectivos:
a) Melhorar o sistema educativo, fornecendo elementos para a selecção de métodos
e recursos educativos com vista à adequação e reformulação dos programas e das
metodologias;
b) Orientar a intervenção do professor na sua relação / com os alunos e com os pais
e/ou encarregados de educação;
c) Ajudar os alunos a seguir o seu próprio processo de aprendizagem;
d) Propiciar ao encarregado de educação elementos para o acompanhamento do
processo de aprendizagem do respectivo educando.
Artigo 5°
(Função formativa da avaliação)
1. A função formativa é prosseguida através de uma avaliação sistemática e
contínua e consiste na recolha e tratamento das informações relativas aos vários
domínios de aprendizagem, que revelem os conhecimentos, as habilidades, as
capacidades e as atitudes desenvolvidas pelos alunos.
2. As informações recolhidas permitem caracterizar os pontos fortes e fracos,
avaliar os êxitos e os fracassos dos alunos, as necessidades, ritmos e oportunidades
de melhoria da aprendizagem e, em função destes elementos, aplicar medidas
educativas de reorientação e de superação das dificuldades sentidas pelos alunos.
Artigo 7°
(Modalidades de Avaliação)
A avaliação tem as seguintes modalidades, as quais devem harmonizar-se de forma
a contribuírem para o sucesso dos alunos e a qualidade do sistema de ensino, sendo
elas:
a) Avaliação Diagnóstica;
b) Avaliação Formativa;
c) Avaliação Sumativa;
d) Avaliação Aferida.
Artigo 8°
(Avaliação diagnóstica)
1. A avaliação diagnóstica é aplicada pelos professores com o fim de averiguar a
posição do aluno face às aprendizagens anteriores que servem de base (pré-
requisitos) para a aquisição de outras no sentido de prever as dificuldades futuras e,
em certos casos, resolver situações presentes. Esta modalidade é aplicada antes de
iniciar uma nova unidade ou ciclo de aprendizagem. Os resultados desta avaliação
deverão ser obtidos por objectivos, não fazendo sentido a atribuição de uma
classificação.
2. A aplicação desta modalidade é de responsabilidade conjunta do professor, em
diálogo com os alunos e com os órgãos de orientação técnico/pedagógica.
Artigo 9°
(Avaliação Formativa)
1. A avaliação formativa é uma modalidade de avaliação aplicada pelos professores
com o fim de determinar a posição do ‘aluno ao longo de uma unidade de ensino,
no sentido de identificar as dificuldades e de lhes dar solução.
2. Esta modalidade consiste na recolha e tratamento, com carácter sistemático e
contínuo, dos dados relativos aos vários domínios de aprendizagem, que revelem os
conhecimentos, as habilidades, as capacidades e atitudes desenvolvidas.
3. A avaliação formativa tem carácter qualitativo e é aplicada através de
instrumentos diversos aplicados individualmente ou em grupo, devendo registar-se
as informações de forma a permitir a tomada de medidas educativas de orientação e
superação das dificuldades dos alunos.
4. A aplicação desta modalidade é da responsabilidade conjunta do professor, em
diálogo com os alunos e com os órgãos e serviços de coordenação e orientação
técnico – pedagógicas.
Artigo 10°
(Avaliação Sumativa)
1. A avaliação Sumativa é a modalidade de avaliação que permite ajuizar o
progresso realizado pelos alunos no final de uma unidade de aprendizagem, no
sentido de aferir os resultados já recolhidos na avaliação formativa e obter
indicadores que permitam aperfeiçoar o processo de ensino.
2. A avaliação Sumativa corresponde a um balanço final e consiste na formulação
de um juízo global sobre o desenvolvimento dos conhecimentos, habilidades,
capacidades dos alunos no final de um período de ensino aprendizagem, tomando
por referência os objectivos relevantes do programa da disciplina, pelo que se
realiza em momentos pontuais.
3. A Avaliação Sumativa compreende a avaliação Sumativa interna e avaliação
Sumativa externa.
4. A Avaliação Sumativa interna consiste na realização de testes escritos e ou orais,
trabalhos de pesquisas e outros, organizados pelos professores e coordenadores de
disciplina a nível da escola, tanto nas disciplinas de carácter anual como bianual, e
visa informar os alunos, os encarregados de educação e os órgãos da escola do
cumprimento dos objectivos curriculares e bem assim fundamentar a tomada de
decisões sobre o percurso escolar do aluno.
5. A avaliação Sumativa externa é da responsabilidade do departamento
governamental responsável pela educação e consiste na realização de provas e
exames finais de âmbito nacional, nos termos previstos neste diploma, com o
objectivo contribuir para a homogeneidade nacional das classificações no ensino
secundário.
Artigo 11°
(Avaliação aferida)
1. A avaliação aferida não tem efeitos na classificação ou na progressão escolar dos
alunos e é aplicada pela Direcção Geral do Ensino Secundário ou por outras
entidades competentes designadas, para o efeito, pelo departamento governamental
responsável pela área da educação, com o fim de controlar a qualidade do ensino e
contribuir para a adequação de medidas de política educativa a adoptar.
2. Esta modalidade pode ser aplicada a nível local ou nacional e é realizada através
de provas elaboradas por especialistas, as quais devem ser aferidas a critérios
decorrentes dos objectivos do ensino, com base em padrões comuns no domínio
dos saberes e aptidões.
3. Estas provas poderão ser aplicadas em qualquer momento do processo de ensino
aprendizagem e a análise dos seus resultados contribuirá para a tomada de decisões
para a melhoria do sistema educativo.
Artigo 12°
(Recolha de informações)
1. A recolha de informações sobre o desempenho dos alunos, pode assumir, entre
outras, as seguintes formas:
a) Perguntas orais e escritas;
b) Trabalhos individuais ou de grupo;
c) Testes escritos e orais;
d) Visitas de estudo e trabalhos de pesquisa;
Artigo 21°
(Critérios de Classificação)
1. Em cada trimestre devem ser aplicados dois testes sumativos, no mínimo, e
recolhidos outros elementos de avaliação sumativa, que devem ser classificados na
escala de 0 a 20 valores.
2. Para efeitos deste diploma, entende-se por outros elementos de avaliação
sumativa quaisquer meios que permitam ao professor aferir competências
cognitivas, afectivas e activas dos alunos, nomeadamente perguntas orais e escritas,
trabalhos individuais e de grupo, pesquisas e trabalhos práticos ou estágios em
empresas.
Artigo 22°
(Classificação Trimestral)
A classificação trimestral (CT) resulta da soma de oitenta por cento da média
aritmética dos testes sumativos (TS) e de vinte por cento de outros elementos de
avaliação (OEA) e expressa-se pela fórmula:
CT = 0,2 × OEA + 0,8 × TS.
Artigo 38°
(Avaliação final do 1°, 2° e 3° ciclos)
1. O final de cada ciclo constitui momento para a realização de uma síntese das
avaliações realizadas ao longo do ciclo, incluindo-se, nessa avaliação, a realização
das seguintes provas:
a) Provas Gerais Internas (PGI);
b) Prova Geral Nacional (PGN);
c) Provas de Recurso (PR).
Artigo 39°
(Provas gerais internas)
1. A prova geral interna é uma prova de avaliação sumativa que se aplica a todos os
alunos do ensino secundário e abarca os objectivos do ano, para as disciplinas
anuais, e do 2° ano de cada ciclo, para as disciplinas bianuais.
2. A prova geral interna é elaborada, a nível de cada escola, por professores
indicados pelo Subdirector Pedagógico e é realizada na última quinzena do 3°
trimestre.
3. Para os alunos da via técnica, as provas das disciplinas de carácter
essencialmente prático têm uma componente teórica de quarenta por cento e urna
componente prática de sessenta por cento.
Artigo 40°
(Prova geral nacional)
1. A prova geral nacional é a última prova de avaliação sumativa do 3° ciclo, que
abarca os objectivos do ciclo e se aplica às disciplinas específicas obrigatórias.
2. A prova geral nacional é elaborada pelos serviços centrais competentes do
departamento governamental responsável pela educação, sob proposta das escolas,
e realiza-se no fim do 2° ano do 3° ciclo.
(…).
4. A prova geral nacional realiza-se:
a) Na data marcada, com uma 1ª chamada;
b) Uma semana depois da 1ª chamada, com uma 2ª chamada, destinada aos
inscritos que, por motivos ponderosos devidamente justificados, se viram
impossibilitados de prestar prova na data marcada.
Artigo 44°
(Exames Nacionais)
1. Os Exames Nacionais são provas de carácter nacional, realizadas em Julho,
elaboradas pelos serviços centrais do departamento governamental responsável pela
educação, aplicadas e corrigidas pelos professores das escolas públicas, designadas
para o efeito de centros de exames.
2. Os exames realizam-se no final de cada ano lectivo em todas as disciplinas do
plano de estudos do 1°, 2° e 3° Ciclo e abrangem os objectivos programáticos de
cada ciclo
3. Os exames nacionais realizam-se:
a) Na data marcada com uma 1ª chamada;
b) Uma semana depois da ia chamada com uma 2ª chamada destinada aos inscritos
que, por motivos ponderosos devidamente justificados, se viram impossibilitados
de prestar prova na data marcada
Artigo 46°
(Regulamentação)
Sem prejuízo do disposto nos artigos e números anteriores, a matéria referente à
aplicação, correcção e classificação das provas gerais internas e nacionais, bem
como de recurso e exame será objecto de regulamentação por portaria do membro
do Governo responsável pela área da educação.
APPENDIX – 7
Participants’ questionnaire
Part A
These questions are about yourself. Tick in the appropriate box or fill in the blank. 1. Gender:
Male Female
2. Age: _______ 3. Years of teaching experience: _______ years 4. What kinds of school do you work in?
Public school Private school
5. Highest degree you hold?
B.A M.A Ph.D
6. Grades that you are teaching currently? (Tick in the appropriate box)
7th grade 8th grade 9th grade more than one grade: 1st grade and 2nd grade
1st grade and 3rd grade 2nd grade and 3rd grade
Part B Tick in the appropriate box or write a short answer. 1. Do you conduct speaking assessment in your school?
Yes No
2. If you answered yes to question 1, how often do you conduct speaking assessment?
Once a year Twice a year Occasionally in class
3. What types of speaking assessment tasks are you currently using? (Tick all the speaking assessment tasks you are using)
Rote memory of text dialog Often Sometimes Never Role- play Self-introduction or family introduction Show and tell Let the students pick up one or two questions in the question box
Picture description Information-gap activity 4. If you use other speaking assessment tasks not mentioned above, describe them
briefly. _____________________________________________________________ 5. Do you believe that speaking assessment is needed in EFL?
Much needed Somewhat needed Rarely needed Not needed at all Unsure
6. Are you satisfied with the speaking assessment tasks you are currently using and the ways of conducting speaking assessment? Strongly satisfied Very satisfied A little satisfied Not satisfied Unsure
7. Do you think that you assess students’ communicative competence when you
conduct speaking assessment?
Yes No Unsure
8. Do you think that speaking assessment is conducted effectively in Capeverdean
Secondary Schools? Yes No Unsure
9. Do you have difficulties in constructing speaking assessment tasks and
administering speaking assessment?
Yes No Unsure
10.In what ways do you get help about speaking assessment?
Seminar Journal of English Education Books related to English Education Teacher training course by Teacher Training Centre A graduate course Not interested Other ( )
11.Which of these do you think is the most important? Please tell me what your
priority is. (Number the boxes in order of importance)
Validity Reliability Practicality
12. Do you score alone or with your colleague to ensure reliability of scoring?
Alone With my colleague
13. Do you hold a teachers conference to ensure reliability of scoring of speaking
assessment?
Yes No
14. Do you consider ‘backwash effect’ of testing on teaching in designing and
conducting speaking assessment?
Yes No Unsure
15. Which type of speaking assessments do you prefer to conduct?
Time-consuming speaking assessment tasks which assess students’ communicative competence
Time-saving speaking assessment tasks which do not assess students’ communicative competence
16. When you are scoring speaking assessment, what criteria do you think is the
most important? (Number the boxes in order of importance)
Fluency Accuracy Pronunciation The amount of preparation
17. What constraints affect your assessment of students’ communicative
competence? (Tick all the related constraints)
Large classes Excessive work in addition to classroom teaching Lack of effective and efficient assessment instruments Difficulty in eliciting students’ responses Difficulty in securing reliability Time-consuming work Teachers’ low English speaking proficiency Few opportunities for retraining in conducting speaking assessment
18. How do you rate your level of proficiency in English? (Write a tick in the appropriate choice) Excellent Good Fair Poor Reading _____ _____ _____ _____ Writing _____ _____ _____ _____ Listening _____ _____ _____ _____ Speaking _____ _____ _____ _____
Thank you for your responses.
Interview Questions
1. What do you think of the speaking assessment?
2. Have you been conducting speaking assessment in your classroom?
If yes, why do you conduct speaking assessment?
3. What types of speaking assessment tasks do you use?
4. How do you conduct speaking assessment?
5. How important do you think it is to consider validity in constructing speaking assessment?
6. What do you think of ‘backwash effect’ of testing on teaching?
7. How do you ensure inter-rater reliability in administering speaking
assessment?
8. Do you assess students’ communicative competence?
9. What difficulties have you experienced in conducting speaking assessment?
10. What do you think of retraining or a workshop for speaking assessment?
APPENDIX 8
Table 1
Background of Questionnaire Participants
Teachers Age Gender Years of
Teaching
experience
Grades
Taught
School Highest degree
completed
Teachers1 23 M 1 7 Domingos Ramos 4th year student at ISE
Teachers2 23 F 2 8 Domingos Ramos 5th year student at ISE
Teachers3 25 M 4 9/ 10 Domingos Ramos Graduated in ELT at
ISE
Teachers4 30 F 7 11/ 12 Palmarejo BA
Teachers5 31 F 3 10/ 12 Domingos Ramos Graduated in ELT at
ISE
Teachers6 36 F 14 12 Palmarejo Graduated in ELT at
ISE
Teachers7 37 F 13 8/ 11 Cesaltina Ramos Graduated in ELT at
ISE
Teachers8 38 F 14 10/ 12 Cesaltina Ramos Graduated in ELT at
ISE
Teachers9 40 M 12 11/ 12 Domingos Ramos Graduated in ELT at
ISE
Teachers10 46 M 16 11 Domingos Ramos BA
Table 2
Background of Interview Informants
Teachers Age Gender Years of
Teaching
experience
Grades
Taught
School Highest degree
completed
Teachers1 23 M 1 7 Domingos Ramos 4th year student at ISE
Teachers3 25 M 4 9/ 10 Domingos Ramos Graduated in ELT at
ISE
Teachers4 30 F 7 11/ 12 Palmarejo BA
Teachers7 37 F 13 8/ 11 Cesaltina Ramos Graduated in ELT at
ISE
Table 3
Speaking assessment tasks used by Capeverdean teachers Let
students
pick 1 or 2
questions
Show
and
Tell
Self or
Family
introduction
Role
Play
Rote
memory
of text
dialog
Picture
description
Information
gap activity
Teacher1 V V V V
Teacher2 V V V V
Teacher3 V V V V
Teacher4 V V V V V
Teacher5 V V V V
Teacher6 V V V V V
Teacher7 V V V
Teacher8 V
Teacher9 V
Teacher10 V V
Number of
Responses
8 7 6 6 5 1 0