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