Reliability of Speaking Proficiency Tests

front mogul of Speaking Proficiency trysIntroduction interrogation, as a pick of side of meat pedagogics, is a actu all in all in ally measurable procedure, non just beca physical exercise it drop be a valuable source of shade ab pop egress the proceedin fleetness of training and t severallying further managewise beca determination it rear improve article of faith, and aro intention the educatees motive to l crystalize. interrogation viva voce attainment has release ace of the close to measurable issues in linguistic conference scrutinying since the decide of address cleverness has execute much(prenominal)(prenominal) key in terminology didactics with the advent of communicatory row t separatelying (Nakamura, 1993). Howalways, assessing verbalise is challenge (Luoma, 2004). stiffness and dependableness, as inherent concerns and essential measurement qualities of the utterance audition (Bachman, 1990 Bachman Palmer, 1996 Alderson e t al, 1995), throw aro usage widespread vigilance. The soundatedation of the talkmaking try is an important ara of inquiry in nomenclature runninging. sort of spontaneous advancement just started in master(prenominal)land China 15 years ago, and on that point ar a few very dominant runens. An increasing subdue of Chinese linguists ar putting their aid and efforts on depth psychology of their rigorousness and depend might. Institutions began to face quarrel leavens into position exams in recent years with the widespread forward motion of communicative sayology teaching (CLT). Publications that bang with speech riddles within institutions earmark closely qualitative assessments (Cai, 2002). much than(prenominal) everywhere there is relatively little research literature relating to the depend cleverness and lustiness of such(prenominal) measures within a university desktop. (Wen, 2001).The College side Department at Dalian Nationalities U niversity (DLNU) has been selected as genius of thirty- i institutions of the College position Re conformity Demonstration Project in the Peoples republic of China. In College face (CE) track down of DLNU, the oration essay is genius and just now(a) of the four sub ladders of the final examination of English assessment. The examination functions 2 diverse dos. One is a semi-direct speechmaking sort, in which outpouringees clack to microphones connected to electronic computers, and hurl their legal transferes put down for the teachers to rate afterwards. The former(a) is a face-to-face converse. This research in this paper aims to ascertain the degree of the dependableness and validness of the address seeks. By analyzing the resolving powers of the research, teachers allow for break to a greater extent awargon of the hardihood and reli dexterity of viva voce assessments, including how to improve the reliability and harshness of phraseology probes . I, as a nomenclature teacher, will polish off insight into the ope grade theater of voice talk technique shield, In order to better degree of reliability and rigorousness of a point render, I will likewise nominate other qualities of streak returns into account when designing the paroles growth test., such as practicality and authenticity. explore researchsThis study mainly addresses the questions of grimness and reliability of the dissertation test administered at DLNU. They ar comprehensive concepts that involve analysis of test labor movements, administration, rank criteria, testee and testers attitudes towards the test, the center of the test on teaching and teacher or learner attitudes towards learning the tests (Luoma, 2004). in that respectfore, the aspiration of this study is to resolving the undermentioned research questions1. Is the speaking test administered at DLNU a valid and reliable test? This question slew involve the following both sub-questions1) To what extent is the speaking test administered at DLNU reliable?2) To what extent is the speaking test administered at DLNU valid?2. In what settings and to what extent whitethorn the validity and reliability of the speaking test administered at DLNU be improved? publications ReviewThis chapter presents a speculative textile of speaking work out, ways of scrutiny speaking, marking of speaking test and the reliability and validity of speaking test, in addition introduces the situation of speaking test in China.Analyzing Speaking And Speaking auditionThe Nature Of SpeakingSpeaking, as a cordial and situation-based activity, is an integral part of peoples daily lives (Luoma, 2004). Testing snatch phrase speaking is practically sequences exacted to be a much more unenviable down the stairstaking than test other second actors line abilities, capacities or competencies, skillsUnderhill, 1987). Assessment is difficult not only because speaking is fleet ing, temp viva voce and ephemeral, but also because of the comprehensibility of pronunciation, the special reputation of spoken grammar and spoken vocabulary, as well as the interactive and social features of speaking (Luoma, 2004), because of the unpredictability and slashing temper of wrangle itself (Brown, 2003). To thrust a dismiss wash up winding of what it manner to be able to speak a linguistic parley, we essential understand that the nature and characteristics of the spoken phrase differ from those of the piss verbally form (Luoma, 2004 McCarthy OKeefe, 2004 Bygate, 2001) in its grammar, syntax, lexis and handle patterns due to the nature of spoken language. intercommunicate English involves reduced well-formed elements arranged into formulaic chunk expressions or utterances with less complex sentences than indite texts. utter English breaks the standard contrive order because the omitted breeding asshole be restored from the instantaneous context (Mc Carthy OKeefe, 2004 Luoma, 2004 Bygate, 2001 Fulcher, 2003). communicate English brings frequent use of the vernacular, interrogatives, tails, adjacency pairs, fillers and question tags which project been interpret as dialogue facilitators (Luoma, 2004 Carter McCarthy, 1995). The language also contains a fair number of slips and errors such as mispronounced words, interracial sounds, and wrong words due to inattention, which is much par by means of with(p)d and allowed by native speakers (Luoma, 2004). Conversations be also negotiable, freakish, and susceptible to social and situational context in which the talks materialize (Luoma, 2004).The Importance Of Speaking TestTesting oral proficiency has become one of the virtually important issues in language test since the grapheme of speaking ability has become more central in language teaching with the advent of CLA (Nakamura, 1993). Of the four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing), listening and rea ding pop off in the receptive elan, age speaking and writing exist in the productive vogue. Understanding and absorption of legitimate training ar foundational man expression and use of acquired information argue an improvement and a more advanced test of cognition. A pass out of interests now in oral testing is partially because second language teaching is more than ever directed towards the speaking and listening skillsUnderhill, 1987). speech teachers atomic number 18 engaged in teaching a language through speaking (Hughes, 20027). On one hand, spoken language is the cerebrate of class inhabit activity. There argon often other aims which the teacher might create for instance, helping the student gain cognisantness of practice in some aspect of linguistic experience (ibid). On the other hand, speaking test, as a device for assessing the learners language proficiency also functions to motivate students and honour their learning of language. This represents what Ba chman (1991) has called an interface betwixt second language acquisition (SLA) and language testing research.However, assessing speaking is challenging, because there ar some(prenominal) factors that influence our ruling of how well someone butt end speak a language (Luoma, 20041) as well as unpredictable or impromptu nature of the speaking interaction. The testing of speaking is difficult due to practical obstacles and theoretical challenges. practically attention has been experiencen to how to meliorate the assessment system of oral English and how to improve its validity and reliability. The communicative nature of the testing environment also mud to be considered (Hughes, 2002).The nominate Of SpeakingIntroduction To Communicative oral communication Ability (CLA)A clear and explicit translation of language ability is essential to language test bring outment and use (Bachman,1990). The theory on which a language test is based determines which kind of language abili ty the test tooshie measure, This image of validity is called construct validity. According to Bachman (199084), CLA abide be outlined as liveing of both friendship or competence and the capacity for implementing or capital punishment that competence in detach, contextualized communicative language use. CLA allow ins three component parts language competence, strategic competence and pyschophysiological mechanisms. The following simulation (figure 2.1) introduces components of communicative language ability in communicative language use (Bachman,199085).Knowledge Structures spoken language competenceKnowledge of the man Knowledge Of actors lineStrategic CompetencePsychophysiological Mechanisms setting Of SituationThis framework has been widely judge in the field of language testing. Bachman (199084) gets that language competence essentially refers to a set of specialised intimacy components that atomic number 18 utilized in communication via language. It com prises organizational and pragmatic competence. ii aras of organizational sleep togetherledge that Bachman (1990) distinguishes are grammatical effledge and textual fellowship. grammatic familiarity comprises vocabulary, syntax, phonology and graphology, and textual companionship, comprises coherence and rhetorical or colloquial organization. Pragmatic competence shows how utterances or sentences and texts are related to the communicative goals of language users and to the features of the langue-use setting. It let ins illocutionary actsor language functions, and sociolinguistic competence, or the knowledge of the sociolinguistic conventions that influence grab language use in a particular finish and in varying situations in that culture (Bachman, 1987).Strategic competence refers to subordination of verbal and nonverbal strategies in facilitating communication and implementing the components of language competence. Strategic competence is demonstrated in contextualiz ed communicative language use, such as socialcultural knowledge, real-world knowledge and mapping this onto the maximally in effect(p) use of existing language abilities.Psychophysiological competence refers to the visual and auditory skill use to gain access to the information in the administrators instructions. Among other things, psychophysiological competence includes things like sound and light.Fulchers Construct descriptionTo know what to assess in a speaking test is a prime concern. Fulcher (1997b) points out that the construct of speaking proficiency is incomplete. Nevertheless, there have been variant drives to reflect the underlying construct of speaking ability and to develop theoretical frameworks for specify the speaking construct. Fulchers framework (figure 2.2) (Fulcher, 2003 48) describes the speaking construct.As Fulcher (2003) points out that there are m either factors that could be included in the definition of the constructPhonology the speaker must be able to label the words, have an understanding of the phonetic social building of the language at the direct of the individual word, have an understanding of intonation, and create the physical sounds that run for meaning. volubility and accuracy these concepts are associated with automaticity of performance and the stupor on the ability of the auditor to understand. Accuracy refers to the correct use of grammatical rules, structure and vocabulary in speech. Fluency has to do with the traffic pattern zip of language to mobilise ones language knowledge in the service of communication at relatively form speed. The step of speech needs to be judged in terms of the staidness of the errors make or the distance from the scrape forms or sounds.Strategic competence this is full generally thought to refer to an ability to achieve ones communicative purpose through the deployment of a range of get by strategies. Strategic competence includes both achievement strategies and avoidanc e strategies. Achievement strategies contain overgeneralization/morphological creativity. Learners transfer knowledge of the language system onto lexical items that they do not know, for example, saying buyed sooner of bought, Speakers also learn approximation learners flip an unknown word with one that is more general or they use exemplification, paraphrasing (use a synonym for the word needed), word coinage (invent a unuse word for an unknown word), restructuring (use diametric words to communicate the uniform message), conjunct strategies (ask for help from the listener) , code shift ( detract a word or phrase from the common language with the listener in order to be understood) and non-linguistic strategies (use gestures or mime, or point to objects in the surroundings to help to communicate). Avoidance or reduction strategies consist of black-tie avoidance (avoiding development part of the language system) and functional avoidance (avoiding local conversation). Strat egic competence includes selecting communicative goals and plan and structuring oral production so as to fulfill them.Textual knowledge competent oral interaction involves some knowledge of how to manage and structure discourse, for example, through appropriate turn-taking, crack and closing strategies, maintaining coherence in ones contributions and employing appropriate interactional routines such as adjacency pairs.Pragmatic and sociolinguistic knowledge legal communication requires correctness and the knowledge of the rules of speaking. A range of speech acts, politeness and verificatoryness sewer be used to avoid causing offence. ways Of Testing SpeakingClark (1979) puts antecedent a theoretical basis to furcate three causes of speaking tests direct, semi-direct and indirect tests. Indirect tests belong to procommunicative era in language testing, in which the test takers are not actually call for to speak. It has been regarded as having the least validity and reliabil ity, spell the other two formats are more widely used (OLoughlin, 2001). In this section, the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of the direct and semi-direct test are presented,The Oral Proficiency converse FormatOne of the earliest and roughly popular direct speaking test formats, and one that continues to exert a strong influence, is the oral proficiency converse (OPI) developed originally by the FSI (Foreign Service Institute) in the unite States in the 1950s and ulterior pick out by other regime agencies. It is conducted with individual test-taker by a instruct interviewer, who assesses the aspect using a world(a) plenty scale (OLoughlin, 2001). It typically begins with a warm-up countersign of a few easy questions, such as getting to know each other or lecture close to the days events. wherefore the main interaction contains the pre-planned tasks, such as describing or comparing pictures, nar rate from a picture series, talking about a pre-announced o r reckonr-selected motion, or perhaps a role- gip task or a reverse interview where the testee asks question of the interviewer (Luoma. 2004). An important example of this causasetters case of test is the speaking component of the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), which is adopted in 105 diverse countries around the world each year.The Advantage Of An hearing FormatThe oral interview was accept as the most normally used speaking test format. Fulcher (2003) suggests that it is partly because the questions used can be standardized, making comparison amidst test takers easier than when other task types are used. Using this method, the instructor can get a sense of the oral communicative competence of students and can inhibit weakness of written exams, because the interview, unlike written exams, is flexible in that the questions can be adapted to each examinees performance, and thus the testers have more controls over what happens in the interaction (Luoma, 200435). It is also relatively easy to train raters and agree high inter-rater reliability (Fulcher, 2003).The mischief Of An Interview FormatHowever, concern and scepticism exist about whether it is executable to test other competencies or knowledge because of the nature of the discourse that the interview produces (van Lier, 1989).a. have a go at it of clock cartridge holderFor the instructor, time counselling can be sooner an issue. For instance, using a two-hour period for exams for 20 students path each student is allowed only 6 minutes for testing. This includes the time needed to enter the room and adjust to the setting. With such a time limit the student and instructor can hardly have some(prenominal) kind of normal real-world conversation.b. stretch out of corrupt kinThe asymmetrical relationship in the midst of quizzers and candidates elicits a form of inauthentic and limited socio-cultural contexts (van Lier, 1989 Savignon, 1985 Yoffe, 1997). Yoffe (1997) commented on ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) OPI that the tester and the test-taker are clearly not in equal positions (Yofee, 1997).The asymmetry is not proper(postnominal) to the OPI but is inherent in the design of an interview as an exchange wherein one person solicits information in order to bugger off at a decision while the interlocutor produces what he or she perceives as most valued. The interviewee is, in most cases, acutely aware of the ramifications of the OPI rating and is, consequently, under a great deal of stress.Van Lier (1989) also challenges the validity of OPI in terms of the asymmetry amid them because the candidate speaks as to a superior and is unwilling to take the opening move (van Lier, 1989). Under the unequal relationship, the speech discourse, such as turn taking, topic nomination and development, and repair strategies are all substantially diametrical from normal conversational exchanges (see van Lier 1989).c. Issue of interviewer variationGiven the fact that the interviewer has substantial power over the examinee in an interview, concerns have been aroused about the effect of the interlocutor (examiner) on the candidates oral performance. Different interviewers vary in their approaches and attitudes toward the interview. Brown (2003) warns the danger of such variation to fairness. OSullivan (2000) conducts an empirical study that indicated learners perform better when interviewed by a woman, regardless of the sex of the learner. Underhill (198731) expresses his concern on the unscripted flexibility means that there will be a considerable divergence between what different learners say, which come upons a test more difficult to assess with amity and reliability.Testing Speaking In PairsThere has been a shift toward a paired speakers format two assessors examine two candidates at a time. One assessor interacts with the two candidates and grade them on a global scale, while the other d oes not take part in the interaction and just assessesusing an analytic scale. The paired oral test has been used as part of large-scale, international, standardized oral proficiency tests since the late 1980s (Ildik, 2001). secern English Test (KET), Preliminary English Test (PET), outgrowth credentials in English (FCE) and Certificate in Advanced English (CAE) make use of the paired format. In a typical test, the interaction begins with a warm-up, in which the examinees introduce themselves to the interlocutor, followed by two pair interaction task. The talk whitethorn involves comparing two photographs by each candidate at first, such as in Cambridge First Certificate (Luoma, 2004), then a two-way collaborative task between the two candidates based on more photographs, artwork or computer graphics, and ends up with a multilateral discussion with the two examinees and the interlocutor about a general stem that is related to the earlier discussion.The advantages of the paired interview formatMany researchers claim that the paired format is preferable to OPI. The reasons area. The changed role of the interviewer frees up the instructors in order to pay closer attention to the production of each candidate than if they are participants themselves (Luoma, 2004).b. The reduced asymmetry allows more varied interaction patterns, which elicits a broader take of discourse and increased turn-takings than were accomplishable in the highly asymmetrical conventional interview (Taylor, 2000).c. The task type based on pair-work will generate a positive washback effect on classroom teaching and learning (Ildiko, 2001). In the case of the instructor following Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) methodology, where pair work whitethorn take up a significant portion of a class, it would be appropriate to incorporate connatural activities in the exam. In that way the exam itself is much better corporate into the fabric of the course. Students can be well-tried for pe rformance related to activities done in class. There may also be benefits in regards to student motivation. If students are aware that they will be tested on activities kindred to the ones done in class, they may have more incentive to be attentive and use class time strongly.The disadvantages of the paired interview formatThere are, however, also concerns voiced regarding the paired format.a. Mismatches between friend interactantsThe most frequently raised criticisms against the paired speaking test relate to various forms of mismatches between peer interactants (Fulcher, 2003). Ildiko (2001) points out that when a candidate has to work with an abstruse or uncomprehending peer partner, it may negatively influence the candidates performance. As a consequence, in such cases it is kind of impossible to make a valid assessment of candidates abilities.b. lack of familiarity between peer interactantsThe extent to which this testing format actually reduces the take aim of anguish of test-takers compared to other test formats remains doubtful (Fulcher, 2003). OSullivan (2002) suggests that the spontaneous support offered by a friend positively reduces anxiety and task performance under experimental conditions. However, the chances are instead high that the examinee will receive with strangers as his or her peer interactant. It is hard to imagine how these strangers can carry out some course flowing conversations. Estrangement, misinterpretation and even division may occur during their talk.c. Lack of control of the discussionProblems are generated if the examiner loses control of the oral task (Luoma, 2004). When the instructions and task materials are not clear enough to urge the discussion, the examinees conversation may go astray. Luoma (2004) points out that testers often feel ambiguous about what amount of responsibility that they should give to the examinees. Furthermore, examinees do not know what kind of performance will earn them good results w ithout the elicitation of the examiner. When one of the examinees has said too little, the examiner ought to oversee and jump in to give help when necessary.Semi-Direct Speaking TestsThe term semi-direct is engaged by Clark (197936) to describe those tests that are characterized by means of tape arrangings, printed test booklets, or other non-human elicitation procedures, rather than through face-to-face conversation with a live interlocutor. be during 1970s, and being an innovative adaptation of the traditional OPI, the semi-direct method normally follows the general structure of the OPI and makes an audio-recording of the test takers performance which is later rated by one or more trained assessors (Malone, 2000). Examples of the semi-direct type used in the U.S.A. are the simulate oral proficiency interviews (SOPI) and the Test of Spoken English 2000 (TSE) (Ferguson, 2009). Examples in U.K. include the Test in English for education Purpose (TEEP) and the Oxford-ARELS Exami nations (OLoughlin, 2001). Another mode of delivery is testing by send for as in the PhonePass test (the test mainly consists of reading sentences aloud or repeating sentences), or even video-conferencing (Ferguson, 2009).The Advantages Of The Semi-Direct Test TypeFirst, the semi-direct test is more cost efficient than direct tests, because many candidates can be tested simultaneously in large laboratories and administered by any teacher, language lab technician or auxiliary in a language science lab where the candidate hears taped questions and has their responses recorded (Malone, 2000).Second, the mode of testing is sort of flexible. It provides a practical solution in situations where it is not possible to deliver a direct test (OLoughlin, 2001), and it can be adapted to the desired level of examinee proficiency and to specific examinee age groups, backgrounds, and professions (Malone, 2000).Third, semi-direct testing represents an attempt to standardize the assessment of speaking while retaining the communicative basis of the OPI (Shohamy, 1994). It offers the alike(p) quality of interview to all examinees, and all examinees respond to the same questions so as to remove the effect that the human interlocutor will have on the candidate (Malone, 2000). The accordance of the elicitation procedure greatly increases the reliability of the test.Some empirical studies (Stansfield, 1991) show high correlations (0. 89- 0. 95) between the direct and semi-direct tests, indicating the two formats can measure the same language abilities and the SOPI can be the resembling and surrogate of the OPI. However, there are also disadvantages.The Disadvantages Of The Semi-Direct Test TypeFirst, the speaking task in semi-direct oral test is less realistic and more near than OPI (Clark, 1979 Underhill, 1987). Examinees use artificial language to respond to tape-recorded questions situations the examinee is not likely to undertake in a real-life setting (Clark, 197938 ). They may feel stressful while speaking to a microphone rather than to another person, especially if they are not accustomed to the laboratory setting (OLoughlin, 2001).Second, the communicative strategy and speech discourse elicited in these semi-direct SOPIs is quite different from that found in typical face-face interaction being more formal, less conversation-like (Shohamy, 1994). Candidates tend to use written language in tape-mediated test, more of a report or narration while, they focus more on interaction and on delivery of meanings in OPI.Third, there are often technical problems that can result in poor quality recordings or even no recording in the SOPI format (Underhill, 1987).In conclusion, one cannot assume any equating between a face-to face test and a semi-direct test (Shohamy, 1994). It may be that they are measuring different things, different constructs, so the mode of test delivery should be adopted on the basis of test purpose, accuracy unavoidableness, prac ticability, and impartiality (Shohamy, 1994). Stansfield (1991) proposes the OPI is more applicable to the placement test and evaluation test of the curriculum, while SOPI is more appropriate for large-scale test with requirement of high reliability.Marking Of Speaking TestMarking and grading is a challenge in assessing second language oral proficiency.. Since only a few elements of the speaking skill can be reachd objectively, human judgments play major roles in assessment. How to establish the valid, reliable, effective marking criteria scales and high quality scoring instruments have always been central to the performance testing of speaking (Luoma, 2004). It is important to have clear, explicit criteria to describe the performance, as it is important for raters to understand and apply these criteria, making it possible to score them consistently and reliably. For these reasons, rating and rating scales have been a central focus of research in the testing of speaking (Ferguson , 2009).Definition Of Rating ScalesA rating scale, also referred to as a scoring rubric or proficiency scale is be by Davies et al as following (see Fulcher, 2003)consisting of a series of deal or levels to which descriptions are attachedproviding an in operation(p) definition of the constructs to be thrifty in the testrequiring training for its effective operationHolistic And analytic Rating ScalesThere are different types of rating scales used for scoring speech samplings. One of the traditional and ordinarily used distinctions is between holistic and analytic rating scales. Holistic rating scales also are referred to as global rating. With these scales, the rater attempts to match the speech sample with a particular band whose descriptors specify a range of defining characteristics of speech at that level. A single score is given(p) to each speech sample each impressionistically or by being guide by a rating scale to encapsulate all the features of the sample (Bachman P almer, 1996).Analytic rating scales They consist of separate scales for different aspects of speaking ability (e.g. grammar / vocabulary pronunciation, fluency, interactional management, etc). A score is given for each aspect (or dimension), and the resulting scores may be combined in a admixture of ways to produce a composite single overall score. They include detailed guidance to raters, and bountiful information that they provide on specific strengths and weakness in examinee performance (Fulcher, 2003). Analytic scales are especially useful for diagnostic purposes and for providing a profile of competence in the different aspects of speaking ability (Ferguson, 2009). The type of scale that is selected for a particular test of speaking will depend upon the purpose of the testValidity And dependability Of Speaking TestBachman And Palmers Theories On Test expediencyThe primary purpose of a language test is to provide a measure that can be interpreted as an indicator of an indiv iduals language ability (Bachman, 1990 Bachman and Palmer, 1996). Bachman and Palmer (1996) propose that test service program including six test qualitiesreliability, construct validity, authenticity, interactiveness, impact (washback) and practicality. Their notion of usefulness can be expressed as in Figure2.3Usefulness= dependableness + Construct validity + Authenticity +Interactiveness + Impact +PracticalityThese qualities are the main criteria used to evaluate a test. Two of the qualities reliability and validity are critical for tests and are sometimes referred to as essential measurement qualities (Bachman Palmer, 199619), because they are the major justification for using test scores as a basis for making inferences or decisions (ibid). The definitions of types of validity and reliability will be presented in this section.Validity And reliablenessDefining ValidityThe quotation from AERA (American educational Research Association ) indicatesValidity is the most important consideration in test evaluation. The concept refers to the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the specific inferences made from test scores. Test validation is the process of accumulating read to support such inferences. A physical body of inferences may be made from scores produced by a given test, and there are many ways of accumulating evidence to support any particular inference. Validity, however, is a unitary concept. Although evidence may be put in in many ways, validity always refers to the degree to which that evidence supports the inferences that are made from the score. The inferences regarding specific uses of a test are validated, not the test itself.(AERA et al., 1985 9)Messick stresses that it is important to note that validity is a matter of degree, not all or none (MessReliability of Speaking Proficiency TestsReliability of Speaking Proficiency TestsIntroductionTesting, as a part of English teaching, is a very important procedure, not just becau se it can be a valuable source of information about the effectiveness of learning and teaching but also because it can improve teaching, and arouse the students motivation to learn. 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 with the advent of communicative language teaching (Nakamura, 1993). However, assessing speaking is challenging (Luoma, 2004). Validity and reliability, as fundamental concerns and essential measurement qualities of the speaking test (Bachman, 1990 Bachman Palmer, 1996 Alderson et al, 1995), have aroused widespread attention. The validation of the speaking test is an important area of research in language testing.Test of oral proficiency just started in China 15 years ago, and there are a few very dominant tests. An increasing number of Chinese linguists are putting their attention and efforts on analysis of their validity and reliabilit y. Institutions began to introduce speaking tests into English exams in recent years with the widespread promotion of communicative language teaching (CLT). Publications that deal with speaking tests within institutions provide some qualitative assessments (Cai, 2002). But there is relatively little research literature relating to the reliability and validity of such measures within a university context. (Wen, 2001).The College English Department at Dalian Nationalities University (DLNU) has been selected as one of thirty-one institutions of the College English refine Demonstration Project in the Peoples republic of China. In College English (CE) course of DLNU, the speaking test is one of the four subtests of the final examination of English assessment. The examination uses two different formats. One is a semi-direct speaking test, in which examinees talk to microphones connected to computers, and have their speeches recorded for the teachers to rate afterwards. The other is a fac e-to-face interview. This research in this paper aims to ascertain the degree of the reliability and validity of the speaking tests. By analyzing the results of the research, teachers will become more aware of the validity and reliability of oral assessments, including how to improve the reliability and validity of speaking tests. I, as a language teacher, will gain insight into the operation of language proficiency test, In order to better degree of reliability and validity of a particular test, I will also take other qualities of test usefulness into account when designing the language proficiency test., such as practicality and authenticity.Research questionsThis study mainly addresses the questions of validity and reliability of the speaking test administered at DLNU. They are comprehensive concepts that involve analysis of test tasks, administration, rating criteria, examinee and testers attitudes towards the test, the effect of the test on teaching and teacher or learner attit udes towards learning the tests (Luoma, 2004). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to answer the following research questions1. Is the speaking test administered at DLNU a valid and reliable test? This question can involve the following two sub-questions1) To what extent is the speaking test administered at DLNU reliable?2) To what extent is the speaking test administered at DLNU valid?2. In what aspects and to what extent may the validity and reliability of the speaking test administered at DLNU be improved?Literature ReviewThis chapter presents a theoretical framework of speaking construct, ways of testing speaking, marking of speaking test and the reliability and validity of speaking test, also introduces the situation of speaking test in China.Analyzing Speaking And Speaking TestThe Nature Of SpeakingSpeaking, as a social and situation-based activity, is an integral part of peoples daily lives (Luoma, 2004). Testing second language speaking is often claimed to be a much more difficult undertaking than testing other second language abilities, capacities or competencies, skillsUnderhill, 1987). Assessment is difficult not only because speaking is fleeting, temporal and ephemeral, but also because of the comprehensibility of pronunciation, the special nature of spoken grammar and spoken vocabulary, as well as the interactive and social features of speaking (Luoma, 2004), because of the unpredictability and dynamic nature of language itself (Brown, 2003). To have a clear understanding of what it means to be able to speak a language, we must understand that the nature and characteristics of the spoken language differ from those of the written form (Luoma, 2004 McCarthy OKeefe, 2004 Bygate, 2001) in its grammar, syntax, lexis and discourse patterns due to the nature of spoken language.Spoken English involves reduced grammatical elements arranged into formulaic chunk expressions or utterances with less complex sentences than written texts. Spoken English bre aks the standard word order because the omitted information can be restored from the instantaneous context (McCarthy OKeefe, 2004 Luoma, 2004 Bygate, 2001 Fulcher, 2003). Spoken English contains frequent use of the vernacular, interrogatives, tails, adjacency pairs, fillers and question tags which have been interpreted as dialogue facilitators (Luoma, 2004 Carter McCarthy, 1995). The speech also contains a fair number of slips and errors such as mispronounced words, mixed sounds, and wrong words due to inattention, which is often pardoned and allowed by native speakers (Luoma, 2004). Conversations are also negotiable, unpredictable, and susceptible to social and situational context in which the talks happen (Luoma, 2004).The Importance Of Speaking TestTesting 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 with the advent of CLA (Nakamura, 1993). Of the four language sk ills (listening, speaking, reading, writing), listening and reading occur in the receptive mode, while speaking and writing exist in the productive mode. Understanding and absorption of received information are foundational while expression and use of acquired information demonstrate an improvement and a more advanced test of knowledge. A lot of interests now in oral testing is partly because second language teaching is more than ever directed towards the speaking and listening skillsUnderhill, 1987). Language teachers are engaged in teaching a language through speaking (Hughes, 20027). On one hand, spoken language is the focus of classroom activity. There are often other aims which the teacher might have for instance, helping the student gain awareness of practice in some aspect of linguistic knowledge (ibid). On the other hand, speaking test, as a device for assessing the learners language proficiency also functions to motivate students and reinforce their learning of language. Th is represents what Bachman (1991) has called an interface between second language acquisition (SLA) and language testing research.However, assessing speaking is challenging, because there are many factors that influence our impression of how well someone can speak a language (Luoma, 20041) as well as unpredictable or impromptu nature of the speaking interaction. The testing of speaking is difficult due to practical obstacles and theoretical challenges. Much attention has been given to how to perfect the assessment system of oral English and how to improve its validity and reliability. The communicative nature of the testing environment also remains to be considered (Hughes, 2002).The Construct Of SpeakingIntroduction To Communicative Language Ability (CLA)A clear and explicit definition of language ability is essential to language test development and use (Bachman,1990). The theory on which a language test is based determines which kind of language ability the test can measure, This type of validity is called construct validity. According to Bachman (199084), CLA can be described as consisting of both knowledge or competence and the capacity for implementing or executing that competence in appropriate, contextualized communicative language use. CLA includes three components language competence, strategic competence and pyschophysiological mechanisms. The following framework (figure 2.1) shows components of communicative language ability in communicative language use (Bachman,199085).Knowledge Structures Language CompetenceKnowledge of the world Knowledge Of LanguageStrategic CompetencePsychophysiological MechanismsContext Of SituationThis framework has been widely accepted in the field of language testing. Bachman (199084) proposes that language competence essentially refers to a set of specific knowledge components that are utilized in communication via language. It comprises organizational and pragmatic competence. Two areas of organizational knowledge that Bachman (1990) distinguishes are grammatical knowledge and textual knowledge. Grammatical knowledge comprises vocabulary, syntax, phonology and graphology, and textual knowledge, comprises cohesion and rhetorical or conversational organization. Pragmatic competence shows how utterances or sentences and texts are related to the communicative goals of language users and to the features of the langue-use setting. It includes illocutionary actsor language functions, and sociolinguistic competence, or the knowledge of the sociolinguistic conventions that govern appropriate language use in a particular culture and in varying situations in that culture (Bachman, 1987).Strategic competence refers to mastery of verbal and nonverbal strategies in facilitating communication and implementing the components of language competence. Strategic competence is demonstrated in contextualized communicative language use, such as socialcultural knowledge, real-world knowledge and mapping this onto the max imally efficient use of existing language abilities.Psychophysiological competence refers to the visual and auditory skill used to gain access to the information in the administrators instructions. Among other things, psychophysiological competence includes things like sound and light.Fulchers Construct DefinitionTo know what to assess in a speaking test is a prime concern. Fulcher (1997b) points out that the construct of speaking proficiency is incomplete. Nevertheless, there have been various attempts to reflect the underlying construct of speaking ability and to develop theoretical frameworks for defining the speaking construct. Fulchers framework (figure 2.2) (Fulcher, 2003 48) describes the speaking construct.As Fulcher (2003) points out that there are many factors that could be included in the definition of the constructPhonology the speaker must be able to articulate the words, have an understanding of the phonetic structure of the language at the level of the individual word , have an understanding of intonation, and create the physical sounds that carry meaning.Fluency and accuracy these concepts are associated with automaticity of performance and the impact on the ability of the listener to understand. Accuracy refers to the correct use of grammatical rules, structure and vocabulary in speech. Fluency has to do with the normal speed of delivery to mobilise ones language knowledge in the service of communication at relatively normal speed. The quality of speech needs to be judged in terms of the gravity of the errors made or the distance from the target forms or sounds.Strategic competence this is generally thought to refer to an ability to achieve ones communicative purpose through the deployment of a range of coping strategies. Strategic competence includes both achievement strategies and avoidance strategies. Achievement strategies contain overgeneralization/morphological creativity. Learners transfer knowledge of the language system onto lexical it ems that they do not know, for example, saying buyed instead of bought, Speakers also learn approximation learners replace an unknown word with one that is more general or they use exemplification, paraphrasing (use a synonym for the word needed), word coinage (invent a new word for an unknown word), restructuring (use different words to communicate the same message), cooperative strategies (ask for help from the listener) , code switching (take a word or phrase from the common language with the listener in order to be understood) and non-linguistic strategies (use gestures or mime, or point to objects in the surroundings to help to communicate). Avoidance or reduction strategies consist of formal avoidance (avoiding using part of the language system) and functional avoidance (avoiding topical conversation). Strategic competence includes selecting communicative goals and planning and structuring oral production so as to fulfill them.Textual knowledge competent oral interaction invol ves some knowledge of how to manage and structure discourse, for example, through appropriate turn-taking, opening and closing strategies, maintaining coherence in ones contributions and employing appropriate interactional routines such as adjacency pairs.Pragmatic and sociolinguistic knowledge effective communication requires appropriateness and the knowledge of the rules of speaking. A range of speech acts, politeness and indirectness can be used to avoid causing offence.Ways Of Testing SpeakingClark (1979) puts forward a theoretical basis to discriminate three types of speaking tests direct, semi-direct and indirect tests. Indirect tests belong to procommunicative era in language testing, in which the test takers are not actually required to speak. It has been regarded as having the least validity and reliability, while the other two formats are more widely used (OLoughlin, 2001). In this section, the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of the direct and semi-direct tes t are presented,The Oral Proficiency Interview FormatOne of the earliest and most popular direct speaking test formats, and one that continues to exert a strong influence, is the oral proficiency interview (OPI) developed originally by the FSI (Foreign Service Institute) in the United States in the 1950s and later adopted by other government agencies. It is conducted with individual test-taker by a trained interviewer, who assesses the candidate using a global band scale (OLoughlin, 2001). It typically begins with a warm-up discussion of a few easy questions, such as getting to know each other or talking about the days events. Then the main interaction contains the pre-planned tasks, such as describing or comparing pictures, narrating from a picture series, talking about a pre-announced or examiner-selected topic, or possibly a role-play task or a reverse interview where the examinee asks question of the interviewer (Luoma. 2004). An important example of this type of test is the spe aking component of the International English Language Testing System (IELTS), which is adopted in 105 different countries around the world each year.The Advantage Of An Interview FormatThe oral interview was recognized as the most commonly used speaking test format. Fulcher (2003) suggests that it is partly because the questions used can be standardized, making comparison between test takers easier than when other task types are used. Using this method, the instructor can get a sense of the oral communicative competence of students and can overcome weakness of written exams, because the interview, unlike written exams, is flexible in that the questions can be adapted to each examinees performance, and thus the testers have more controls over what happens in the interaction (Luoma, 200435). It is also relatively easy to train raters and obtain high inter-rater reliability (Fulcher, 2003).The Disadvantage Of An Interview FormatHowever, concern and skepticism exist about whether it is possible to test other competencies or knowledge because of the nature of the discourse that the interview produces (van Lier, 1989).a. Issue of timeFor the instructor, time management can be quite an issue. For instance, using a two-hour period for exams for 20 students means each student is allowed only six minutes for testing. This includes the time needed to enter the room and adjust to the setting. With such a time limit the student and instructor can hardly have any kind of normal real-world conversation.b. Issue of asymmetrical relationshipThe asymmetrical relationship between examiners and candidates elicits a form of inauthentic and limited socio-cultural contexts (van Lier, 1989 Savignon, 1985 Yoffe, 1997). Yoffe (1997) commented on ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) OPI that the tester and the test-taker are clearly not in equal positions (Yofee, 1997).The asymmetry is not specific to the OPI but is inherent in the notion of an interview as an e xchange wherein one person solicits information in order to arrive at a decision while the interlocutor produces what he or she perceives as most valued. The interviewee is, in most cases, acutely aware of the ramifications of the OPI rating and is, consequently, under a great deal of stress.Van Lier (1989) also challenges the validity of OPI in terms of the asymmetry between them because the candidate speaks as to a superior and is unwilling to take the initiative (van Lier, 1989). Under the unequal relationship, the speech discourse, such as turn taking, topic nomination and development, and repair strategies are all substantially different from normal conversational exchanges (see van Lier 1989).c. Issue of interviewer variationGiven the fact that the interviewer has considerable power over the examinee in an interview, concerns have been aroused about the effect of the interlocutor (examiner) on the candidates oral performance. Different interviewers vary in their approaches and attitudes toward the interview. Brown (2003) warns the danger of such variation to fairness. OSullivan (2000) conducts an empirical study that indicated learners perform better when interviewed by a woman, regardless of the sex of the learner. Underhill (198731) expresses his concern on the unscripted flexibility means that there will be a considerable divergence between what different learners say, which makes a test more difficult to assess with consistency and reliability.Testing Speaking In PairsThere has been a shift toward a paired speakers format two assessors examine two candidates at a time. One assessor interacts with the two candidates and rates them on a global scale, while the other does not take part in the interaction and just assessesusing an analytic scale. The paired oral test has been used as part of large-scale, international, standardized oral proficiency tests since the late 1980s (Ildik, 2001). Key English Test (KET), Preliminary English Test (PET), First Cer tificate in English (FCE) and Certificate in Advanced English (CAE) make use of the paired format. In a typical test, the interaction begins with a warm-up, in which the examinees introduce themselves to the interlocutor, followed by two pair interaction task. The talk may involves comparing two photographs by each candidate at first, such as in Cambridge First Certificate (Luoma, 2004), then a two-way collaborative task between the two candidates based on more photographs, artwork or computer graphics, and ends up with a three-way discussion with the two examinees and the interlocutor about a general theme that is related to the earlier discussion.The advantages of the paired interview formatMany researchers claim that the paired format is preferable to OPI. The reasons area. The changed role of the interviewer frees up the instructors in order to pay closer attention to the production of each candidate than if they are participants themselves (Luoma, 2004).b. The reduced asymmetry allows more varied interaction patterns, which elicits a broader sample of discourse and increased turn-takings than were possible in the highly asymmetrical traditional interview (Taylor, 2000).c. The task type based on pair-work will generate a positive washback effect on classroom teaching and learning (Ildiko, 2001). In the case of the instructor following Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) methodology, where pair work may take up a significant portion of a class, it would be appropriate to incorporate similar activities in the exam. In that way the exam itself is much better integrated into the fabric of the course. Students can be tested for performance related to activities done in class. There may also be benefits in regards to student motivation. If students are aware that they will be tested on activities similar to the ones done in class, they may have more incentive to be attentive and use class time effectively.The disadvantages of the paired interview formatThere a re, however, also concerns voiced regarding the paired format.a. Mismatches between peer interactantsThe most frequently raised criticisms against the paired speaking test relate to various forms of mismatches between peer interactants (Fulcher, 2003). Ildiko (2001) points out that when a candidate has to work with an incomprehensible or uncomprehending peer partner, it may negatively influence the candidates performance. As a consequence, in such cases it is quite impossible to make a valid assessment of candidates abilities.b. Lack of familiarity between peer interactantsThe extent to which this testing format actually reduces the level of anxiety of test-takers compared to other test formats remains doubtful (Fulcher, 2003). OSullivan (2002) suggests that the spontaneous support offered by a friend positively reduces anxiety and task performance under experimental conditions. However, the chances are quite high that the examinee will meet with strangers as his or her peer interac tant. It is hard to imagine how these strangers can carry out some naturally flowing conversations. Estrangement, misinterpretation and even breakdown may occur during their talk.c. Lack of control of the discussionProblems are generated if the examiner loses control of the oral task (Luoma, 2004). When the instructions and task materials are not clear enough to facilitate the discussion, the examinees conversation may go astray. Luoma (2004) points out that testers often feel uncertain about what amount of responsibility that they should give to the examinees. Furthermore, examinees do not know what kind of performance will earn them good results without the elicitation of the examiner. When one of the examinees has said too little, the examiner ought to monitor and jump in to give help when necessary.Semi-Direct Speaking TestsThe term semi-direct is employed by Clark (197936) to describe those tests that are characterized by means of tape recordings, printed test booklets, or othe r non-human elicitation procedures, rather than through face-to-face conversation with a live interlocutor. Appearing during 1970s, and being an innovative adaptation of the traditional OPI, the semi-direct method normally follows the general structure of the OPI and makes an audio-recording of the test takers performance which is later rated by one or more trained assessors (Malone, 2000). Examples of the semi-direct type used in the U.S.A. are the simulated oral proficiency interviews (SOPI) and the Test of Spoken English 2000 (TSE) (Ferguson, 2009). Examples in U.K. include the Test in English for Education Purpose (TEEP) and the Oxford-ARELS Examinations (OLoughlin, 2001). Another mode of delivery is testing by telephone as in the PhonePass test (the test mainly consists of reading sentences aloud or repeating sentences), or even video-conferencing (Ferguson, 2009).The Advantages Of The Semi-Direct Test TypeFirst, the semi-direct test is more cost efficient than direct tests, b ecause many candidates can be tested simultaneously in large laboratories and administered by any teacher, language lab technician or aide in a language laboratory where the candidate hears taped questions and has their responses recorded (Malone, 2000).Second, the mode of testing is quite flexible. It provides a practical solution in situations where it is not possible to deliver a direct test (OLoughlin, 2001), and it can be adapted to the desired level of examinee proficiency and to specific examinee age groups, backgrounds, and professions (Malone, 2000).Third, semi-direct testing represents an attempt to standardize the assessment of speaking while retaining the communicative basis of the OPI (Shohamy, 1994). It offers the same quality of interview to all examinees, and all examinees respond to the same questions so as to remove the effect that the human interlocutor will have on the candidate (Malone, 2000). The uniformity of the elicitation procedure greatly increases the rel iability of the test.Some empirical studies (Stansfield, 1991) show high correlations (0. 89- 0. 95) between the direct and semi-direct tests, indicating the two formats can measure the same language abilities and the SOPI can be the equivalent and surrogate of the OPI. However, there are also disadvantages.The Disadvantages Of The Semi-Direct Test TypeFirst, the speaking task in semi-direct oral test is less realistic and more artificial than OPI (Clark, 1979 Underhill, 1987). Examinees use artificial language to respond to tape-recorded questions situations the examinee is not likely to encounter in a real-life setting (Clark, 197938). They may feel stressful while speaking to a microphone rather than to another person, especially if they are not accustomed to the laboratory setting (OLoughlin, 2001).Second, the communicative strategy and speech discourse elicited in these semi-direct SOPIs is quite different from that found in typical face-face interaction being more formal, le ss conversation-like (Shohamy, 1994). Candidates tend to use written language in tape-mediated test, more of a report or narration while, they focus more on interaction and on delivery of meanings in OPI.Third, there are often technical problems that can result in poor quality recordings or even no recording in the SOPI format (Underhill, 1987).In conclusion, one cannot assume any equivalence between a face-to face test and a semi-direct test (Shohamy, 1994). It may be that they are measuring different things, different constructs, so the mode of test delivery should be adopted on the basis of test purpose, accuracy requirement, practicability, and impartiality (Shohamy, 1994). Stansfield (1991) proposes the OPI is more applicable to the placement test and evaluation test of the curriculum, while SOPI is more appropriate for large-scale test with requirement of high reliability.Marking Of Speaking TestMarking and scoring is a challenge in assessing second language oral proficiency.. Since only a few elements of the speaking skill can be scored objectively, human judgments play major roles in assessment. How to establish the valid, reliable, effective marking criteria scales and high quality scoring instruments have always been central to the performance testing of speaking (Luoma, 2004). It is important to have clear, explicit criteria to describe the performance, as it is important for raters to understand and apply these criteria, making it possible to score them consistently and reliably. For these reasons, rating and rating scales have been a central focus of research in the testing of speaking (Ferguson, 2009).Definition Of Rating ScalesA rating scale, also referred to as a scoring rubric or proficiency scale is defined by Davies et al as following (see Fulcher, 2003)consisting of a series of band or levels to which descriptions are attachedproviding an operational definition of the constructs to be measured in the testrequiring training for its effective operationHolistic And Analytic Rating ScalesThere are different types of rating scales used for scoring speech samples. One of the traditional and commonly used distinctions is between holistic and analytic rating scales. Holistic rating scales also are referred to as global rating. With these scales, the rater attempts to match the speech sample with a particular band whose descriptors specify a range of defining characteristics of speech at that level. A single score is given to each speech sample either impressionistically or by being guided by a rating scale to encapsulate all the features of the sample (Bachman Palmer, 1996).Analytic rating scales They consist of separate scales for different aspects of speaking ability (e.g. grammar / vocabulary pronunciation, fluency, interactional management, etc). A score is given for each aspect (or dimension), and the resulting scores may be combined in a variety of ways to produce a composite single overall score. They include detailed guidance to raters, and rich information that they provide on specific strengths and weakness in examinee performance (Fulcher, 2003). Analytic scales are particularly useful for diagnostic purposes and for providing a profile of competence in the different aspects of speaking ability (Ferguson, 2009). The type of scale that is selected for a particular test of speaking will depend upon the purpose of the testValidity And Reliability Of Speaking TestBachman And Palmers Theories On Test UsefulnessThe primary purpose of a language test is to provide a measure that can be interpreted as an indicator of an individuals language ability (Bachman, 1990 Bachman and Palmer, 1996). Bachman and Palmer (1996) propose that test usefulness including six test qualitiesreliability, construct validity, authenticity, interactiveness, impact (washback) and practicality. Their notion of usefulness can be expressed as in Figure2.3Usefulness=Reliability + Construct validity + Authenticity +Interactivene ss + Impact +PracticalityThese qualities are the main criteria used to evaluate a test. Two of the qualities reliability and validity are critical for tests and are sometimes referred to as essential measurement qualities (Bachman Palmer, 199619), because they are the major justification for using test scores as a basis for making inferences or decisions (ibid). The definitions of types of validity and reliability will be presented in this section.Validity And ReliabilityDefining ValidityThe quotation from AERA (American Educational Research Association ) indicatesValidity is the most important consideration in test evaluation. The concept refers to the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the specific inferences made from test scores. Test validation is the process of accumulating evidence to support such inferences. A variety of inferences may be made from scores produced by a given test, and there are many ways of accumulating evidence to support any particular i nference. Validity, however, is a unitary concept. Although evidence may be accumulated in many ways, validity always refers to the degree to which that evidence supports the inferences that are made from the score. The inferences regarding specific uses of a test are validated, not the test itself.(AERA et al., 1985 9)Messick stresses that it is important to note that validity is a matter of degree, not all or none (Mess