The current practices of classroom speaking assessment at secondary schools in phu tho town phu tho province

In addition, while several studies have been carried out to investigate the practices of classroom assessment at primary schools Pham, 2013 or the practices of speaking assessment at hig

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

THỰC TRẠNG KIỂM TRA ĐÁNH GIÁ

KĨ NĂNG NÓI TRÊN LỚP TẠI CÁC TRƯỜNG THCS, THỊ XÃ PHÚ THỌ, TỈNH PHÚ THỌ

Giáo viên hướng dẫn: T.S Dương Thu Mai Sinh viên : Lê Thùy Dương Khóa : QH2016.F1.E2

HÀ NỘI - 2020

Signature of Approval:

_ Supervisor’s Comments & Suggestions

_ _ _ _ _ Date

_

ACCEPTANCE PAGE

I hereby state that I: Lê Thùy Dương, being a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited in the library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origins of my paper deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper

Signature

_

Date

_

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor

Ms Duong Thu Mai for her great dedication, careful guidance and critical comments If it had not been for her patience to accompany me during tough time, my graduation thesis could not have been completed I am indebted to all

of her effort to carefully read my thesis to provide constructive advice

Secondly, I would like to thank 28 teachers from 10 secondary schools in Phu Tho Town, Phu Tho Province for their enthusiastic participation in my study

I am also grateful to my classmates from 16E2 class, particularly Tran Hoai Linh,

Vu Phuong Anh, Ngo Thu Phuong and Nguyen Thuy Vi I appreciate all the moments that they intently listened to my difficulties and encouraged me to thrive for the best

Additionally, my thankfulness is dedicated to my dearest friends, Titatito and

AL It is no exaggeration to say that their presence is truly a blessing in my life Last but not least, my heartfelt thanks are towards my beloved family, who have been a pillar of strength all the time Their unwavering and wholehearted support has been a firm base for me to achieve any goal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

ABSTRACT ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Statement of research problem and rationale for the study 1

1.2 Scope of the research 3

1.4 Method of the study 3

1.5 Organization of the paper 4

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Defining assessment and classroom assessment 5

2.2 Components of classroom assessment 6

2.2.1 Purposes 7

2.2.2 Learning objectives or targets 8

2.2.3 Measurement 9

2.2.4 Interpretation 11

2.2.5 Use 11

2.3 Factors affecting classroom assessment 12

2.4 Speaking assessment 14

2.4.1 Defining the construct of speaking competence 14

2.4.2 Criteria for speaking assessment 16

2.4.3 Speaking assessment methods 18

2.5 Requirements for teachers in conducting speaking assessment in 20

Vietnam 20

2.6 Related studies 22

2.6.1 Related studies on classroom assessment practices 22

2.6.2 Related studies on factors affecting teachers’ assessment practices 23

2.6.3 Related studies on practices of classroom speaking assessment 23

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY 25

3.1 Settings of the study 25

3.2 Sampling and participations 25

3.3 Data collection 26

3.3.1 Data collection instruments 26

3.3.2 Data collection procedure 29

3.4 Data analysis methods 30

Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 32

4.1 Purposes of classroom speaking assessment 32

4.2 Targets of classroom speaking assessment 34

4.3 Criteria for classroom speaking assessment 35

4.4 Methods of classroom speaking assessment 37

4.5 Procedure of classroom speaking assessment 39

4.5.1 Sources of assessment items and tasks 39

4.5.2 Steps to design speaking tests in the classroom 40

4.5.3 Types of evidence for classroom speaking assessment 41

4.5.4 Methods for interpreting assessment results 42

4.5.5 Methods for providing feedback and reporting 43

4.5.6 Time spent on assessment and evaluation 44

4.6 Factors affecting classroom speaking assessment 45

4.6.1 Internal factors 45

4.6.1.1 Teacher beliefs and values 45

4.6.1.2 Teacher’s assessment literacy 47

4.6.1.3 Teacher’s workload 49

4.6.1.4 Class size 50

4.6.2 External factors 51

4.6.2.1 Speaking assessment policies 51

4.6.2.2 High school entrance exam 53

Chapter 5: CONCLUSION 55

5.1 Major findings of the study 55

5.2 Pedagogical implications 57

5.3 Limitations and suggestions for further study 58

REFERENCES 59

APPENDICES 68

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

List of Figures

Figure 1: Components of classroom assessment 6

Figure 2: Factors affecting teachers’ assessment practices 13

Figure 3: A framework for describing speaking construct 15

Figure 4: Criteria for classroom speaking assessment 36

Figure 5: Methods of classroom speaking assessment 37

Figure 6: Evidence for classroom speaking assessment 42

List of tables

Table 1: Methods of speaking assessment 19

Table 2: Frameworks for questionnaires 28

Table 3: Purposes of classroom speaking assessment 32

Table 4: Sources of assessment items and tasks 40

Table 5: Procedure of designing speaking tests 41

Table 6: Forms of feedback and final reporting provided to students 43

Table 7: Time spent on speaking assessment and evaluation 44

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

MOET: Ministry of Education and Training DOET: Department of Education and Training

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

This initial chapter justifies the problem and reasons for this research to

be conducted Next, two research questions, the scope, the significance, the method and the organization of the study will be presented

1.1 Statement of research problem and rationale for the study

Assessment is of great importance in teaching and learning (Cheng, Rogers, & Wang, 2008) The information collected from assessment can be made

to “render decisions about students, curricula and programs, and educational policy” (Nitko, 2009) Among the assessment of four skills, that of spoken language can be regarded as one of the most major issues in the research of language assessment (Grada, 2014) According to Lam (2018), although “the assessment of speaking skills is the youngest subfield of language assessment”

as cited in Alderson, 1991, p.22), it has rapidly become a topic of interest (Munoz

et al, 2003) For instance, the principles of speaking assessment related to speaking construct and speaking tasks are introduced by Brown (2003) and Lumley and O’Sullivan (2005) With regard to the validity and reliability of speaking assessment, Fulcher et al (2011) explores its relationship with the use

of rating scales

Being aware of the importance of assessment, particularly speaking assessment, Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) issued Dispatch No 5333/ BGDĐT-GDTrH in 2014 to prescribe the requirement for English testing and assessment at secondary schools According to the Dispatch,

it is necessary to assess students in four language skills, namely Reading, Listening, Speaking, Writing However, English speaking assessment has rarely been paid adequate attention in the context of Vietnamese classroom As stated

by Nguyen and Tran (2018), “English speaking assessment has not been the main focus of language assessment, both in periodical 45-minute tests and end-of semester tests; it has yet been administered in any formal examinations either”

(p.125) In addition, Tran (2010) points out that the conduct of English speaking teaching and assessment in Vietnam is still limited due to subjective and objective causes This can indicate that implementing classroom speaking assessment has still been a questionable matter in Vietnam

In addition, while several studies have been carried out to investigate the practices of classroom assessment at primary schools (Pham, 2013) or the practices of speaking assessment at high schools (Truong, 2010; Nguyen & Tran, 2018), how classroom speaking assessment is carried out at secondary schools remains little known This research, entitled “The current practices of classroom speaking assessment at secondary schools” hopefully could bridge the gap to some extent

The research was conducted in Phu Tho Town, Phu Tho Province due to

a special focus of the provincial Department of Education and Training (DOET), which emphasizes that assessment in secondary schools should assess the true competence of students According to Dispatch No 1017/ SGDĐT-GDTrH issued by Phu Tho DOET in 2018, a shift from knowledge provision to competence development of students is promoted to meet the requirements of teaching and learning renovations Therefore, assessment in secondary schools

1.2 Scope of the research

As the topic of the study is “the current practices” of in-service secondary teachers, the focus is on how the purposes, targets, measurement, interpretation and use of speaking assessment is reflected in the classroom and what influences their implementation

This study is carried out using mixed methods design The target participants are teachers from ten secondary schools in Phu Tho Town 28 teachers were involved to do a survey on their practices of classroom speaking assessment This number of teachers is suitable because it covers all teachers of secondary schools in the local area Besides, semi-structured interviews with 8 teachers were conducted This number of teachers is well-represented because

it accounts for over one-fourth of the population, enabling the researcher to generalize the results

1.3 Significance of the study

With this study, the research expects to investigate the classroom speaking assessment practices including assessment purposes, targets, measurement, interpretation and use and the factors influencing these practices

at secondary schools in Phu Tho Town Once completed, the research would serve as a source of reference for those who wish to gain insights in the current situation of classroom speaking assessment at secondary schools More importantly, the findings would establish a basis for future trainings on the teachers’ literacy of language assessment

1.4 Method of the study

In this study, the research adopted both quantitative and qualitative design While quantitative procedure was employed to analyze data from the questionnaire, qualitative one was for data analysis from the interview

This study employed two types of data collection instruments, which were questionnaires, and semi-structured interview protocols To be specific, data collected from the questionnaires helped answer research question one, which is about teachers’ practices of classroom speaking assessment Regarding the interviews, they allowed the researcher to find out the reasons behind their implementation of in-service teachers’ classroom speaking assessment

1.5 Organization of the paper

This research consists of five chapters presented as below:

Chapter 1 – Introduction – presents the rationale, aims, scope, significance,

method and structure of the study

Chapter 2 – Literature review – provides the definition of key terms as well as

the framework of the study and includes reviews on related studies to the research topic

Chapter 3 – Methodology – gives information about the setting of the research,

sampling method, participants’ information, data collection instruments, and data analysis methods of the research

Chapter 4 – Findings and discussion – presents, analyzes and discusses the

research findings

Chapter 5 – Conclusion – provides the summary of findings;

implications, limitations of the study; and suggestions for further research

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter discusses theoretical knowledge and related studies, which serve as a background to tackle the research questions The definitions of key terms such as “assessment”, “classroom assessment” and “speaking assessment” will be presented along with the theories and the research gap from relevant literature

2.1 Defining assessment and classroom assessment

Assessment has long been acknowledged as an integral part of the teaching–learning process (James, McInnis, & Devlin, 2002) There exists no fixed definition of this term According to Paloma and Banta (1999), assessment

is a process of collecting, analyzing and making use of information about students' performances Sharing the same idea, Chapelle and Brindley (2002) claims that language assessment is defined as “the act of collecting information and making judgments on a language learner’s understanding of a language and his ability to use it” (p.267) As suggested by these researchers, assessment consists of different steps and students are its main subject Discussing about assessment, Brookhart and Nitko (2015) argues that assessment is a broad term defined as a process for making decisions about students; curricula, programs, and schools; and educational policy As can be seen in this definition, the subject

of assessment is expanded meanwhile it still puts focus on steps of assessment process As a result, the study employed the definition of Brookhart and Nitko (2015) about assessment

With regard to the scale of assessment, Duong, Pham and Thai (2012) classify it into classroom assessment, school-based assessment, and large-scale assessment There are a number of similar terms for the type of assessment that takes place in classrooms, such as teacher assessment or classroom-based assessment In this study, classroom assessment equals classroom-based assessment, but is not limited to teacher assessment

According to McKay (2006), classroom assessment refers to any

assessment carried out by teachers in the classroom Similarly, McMillan (2015)

states that “the difference between classroom assessment and other types of

assessment lies in the fact that it is primarily controlled and used by classroom

teachers, and are often unique to each class” (p 819) It means with different

classes, teachers can have different practices of assessment, such as set diverse

learning objectives and select assessment methods serving the needs of

individual learners In contrast, large-scale testing or standardized one is

implemented across different classes, schools, and states with specific and set

procedures, formats and scoring levels Besides, Cheng and Fox (2017) points

out that classroom assessment occurs over a period of time, meanwhile,

large-scale testing is one-time measurement

In summary, assessment, particularly classroom assessment is the process

of collecting and discussing information from different sources Based on the

result of assessment, different judgments and decisions can be made

2.2 Components of classroom assessment

McNamara (2001) points out three critical dimensions of classroom

assessment, namely “data collection”, “interpretation” and “use”, which goes

along quite well with the general definitions of assessment as a process in section

2.1 These dimensions also gain agreement from McMillan (2015) However,

McMillan (2015) specify what forms the “data collection” phase/dimension of

the assessment process They are “purposes”, “learning objectives or targets” and

“measurement” of classroom assessment The five components of classroom

assessment suggested by McMillan is illustrated in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Components of classroom assessment

Purposes Learning

objectives Measurement Interpretation Use

2.2.1 Purposes

In the first step of classroom assessment process, clarifying the specific purpose or purposes of gathering the information plays an important role A clear vision is needed of what the assessment will accomplish (McMillan, 2004) Based on the purposes, classroom assessment can be classified into formative and summative one Brown (2004) as well as Hattie and Timperley (2007) point out that assessment is called assessment for learning or formative assessment when it is intended to give feedback to learners during a course, whereas assessment is called assessment of learning or summative assessment when it is used at the end of a term, a semester or a year to measure students’ learning However, regarding the in-class assessment practice, more emphasis has been placed on formative assessment It has become a powerful catalyst for learning

Apart from the above-mentioned classification, Cheng, Rogers and Hu (2004) propose three main purposes of assessment common in our classrooms They are the instructional, student-centred and administrative purposes

• Instructional purpose: It is necessary for teachers to obtain data on students’ learning, understanding, and skills For example, to check students’ understanding, teachers are expected to ask them to do an exercise or observe students’ in-class practice After analyzing the data collected, teachers can make educational decisions by planning and adjusting their instruction

• Student-Centred purpose: Assessment serves to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of students Within the classroom, “teachers may draw

on diagnostic assessment techniques to adapt course instruction and better meet their students’ learning needs” (Black & Wiliam, 1998)

• Administrative purpose: This purpose is related to summative assessment

or assessment of learning (Cheng & Fox, 2017) After giving students final grades, teachers are required to report the statistic figures and make public statements to parents and principals about student achievement Grading is in the form of a numerical (e.g., 78) or ordinal (e.g., A, B, or C)

As suggested by Shulman (1986) and Calderhead (1996), with the complexity of classroom assessment, teachers are likely to consider associating the assessment purposes with their chosen approaches and procedures This view

is shared by Cheng and Fox (2015) who clarify that “the purposes of our assessment influence the frequency and timing of assessment (assessment events), the methods used (assessment tools) and how an assessment is carried out (assessment processes)” (p.10) In summary, in this research, the author explored the purposes of classroom speaking assessment according to the classification of Cheng, Rogers and Hu (2004) as in each purpose, the subjects

of assessment such as teachers, students, parents, etc are clearly identified

2.2.2 Learning objectives or targets

Learning objectives or targets are statements defining what students are expected to learn (McMillan, 2015) Learning objectives are considered to be the heart of assessment in classroom because teachers need to be clear about what learning outcomes they want to assess (Nitko, 2009) Compared to educational standards and general learning goals, learning objectives are more specific and refer to what is to be achieved over short units of instruction (McMillan, 2015) Besides, these objectives should be truly meaningful and align with the learning objectives or outcomes that exist in the school or district curriculum or that are identified in a particular course of study (Witte, 2012) To write clear and

specific learning targets for teachers to follow and for students to understand their expected performance, teachers are suggested to identify the knowledge and cognitive processing levels based on Bloom’s modified taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) To be more detailed, the taxonomy classifies cognition ability into 6 hierarchical levels, which are remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating and creating

All in all, it is necessary that classroom assessment directly aligns with the intended learning targets of the lesson because teachers may easily fail to assess learning outcomes validly without clear ones

2.2.3 Measurement

Measurement is “the process of quantification of behavior or performance, the assigning of numbers to suggest a level of achievement” (McMillan, 2015, p.819) The result of measurement is typically a score, reported as either a number, or a grade, or a level of performance During the measurement process, teachers need to identify the assessment methods and instruments used in their classroom, administer the methods and instruments to the students, and assign scores to the students’ performance

There are several ways to classify the methods of classroom assessment used by teachers In terms of question or item types, Brown and Hudson (1998) identify three basic assessment types according to the types of students’ responses, including selected-response, constructed-response and personal-response

• Selected-response assessments methods: With this method of assessment, students are provided with language input and limited options to select the correct answer They do not have opportunities to create new language Selected-response assessments questions normally consist of

“True/False”, “Matching” and “Multiple-choice”

• Constructed-response assessments methods: In constructed-response assessments methods, students are expected to produce language in terms

of speaking and writing skills Compared to the aforementioned assessment, this one expects a higher level of cognitive skills Three types

of constructed-response assessments questions are fill-in, short-answer, and performance assessments

• Personal-response assessments methods: Despite being similar to the constructed-response assessment in the sense of language production, personal-response ones accept different answers of each individual As a result, teachers can provide personal or individualized assessment Conferences, portfolios, and self- and peer- assessments are the most prevalent tools of these assessment methods

Another classification of assessment methods suggested by Cheng, Rogers and Hu (2004) points out 3 main following methods:

• instructor-made assessment methods;

• student-conducted assessment methods;

• Non-instructor developed methods: standardized testing in reading, writing, speaking and listening

As stated by Cheng and Fox (2017), “the more the assessment practice directly involves our students, the greater the probability that our students will develop increased awareness of their learning progress and take responsibility for their learning” (p.77) It is clearly seen that in this model, the authors shift the attention towards the role of students in classroom assessment in contrast to the focus on assessment methods and instrument by Brown and Hudson (1998)

In the phase of measurement, apart from choosing assessment methods, teachers need to design their own test To ensure the quality of a test, they are required to follow various stages As suggested by McNamara (1996), planning

a language performance test involves following steps: Render test rationale, acknowledge sources, select test content, develop specifications (including scoring procedure) and write materials, pilot the test, select and train raters, analyze the trial data, revise materials and specifications, set standard and

implement and monitor the test In this study, the model above was adopted to

examine teachers’ process of design a speaking test since the model focuses on the performance aspect of the test as well as clearly clarify the procedure of content selection

2.2.4 Interpretation

Interpretation involves an evaluation of what has been gathered through measurement, in which value judgments are made about performance (McMillan, 2018) There are a number of ways employed to interpret student’s scores However, two most prevalent frameworks introduced by Blerkom (2009) are norm-referenced and criterion-referenced With norm-referenced interpretations, the score of a student is compared with that of a norm group of students who have been decided by the test designers, the teacher in the case of classroom assessment This norm group can be a class or a grade or a larger group of students Meanwhile, in criterion-referenced assessment, a score is interpreted by comparing it to a performance standard (Popham, 1978a) In this study, the frameworks of Blerkom (2009) was chosen to study teachers’ interpretation of assessment results in the research setting

2.2.5 Use

Once the evaluation process is completed, teachers come to make decision

on the use of classroom assessment It is noteworthy that classroom assessment’s use should be consistent with its purposes According to McMillan (2015), interpreted results can used in different ways, including grading, reporting to parents, planning subsequent instruction, and feedback to students

With regard to feedback to students, Hattie and Timperley (2007) state that

“the main purpose of feedback is to reduce the gap between current understandings and performance and a goal” (p.86) About the methods of feedback, Cheng, Rogers and Hu (2004) categorize it into 7 main types, which are “verbal feedback”, “checklist”, “written comments”, “teaching diary”,

“conference with student”, “total test score” and “a letter grade” This study

employed the classification of Cheng, Rogers and Hu (2004) to investigate secondary school teachers’ choice of feedback methods However, the researcher did not include the type of “a letter grade” since it is not applied in Vietnamese secondary schools

To sum up, all the five components of classroom assessment are important and this is the crucial basis for studying teachers’ practices of classroom speaking assessment in this study

2.3 Factors affecting classroom assessment

Teachers’ assessment practices are unique to each classroom The differences in the practices of classroom assessment can be ascribed to various factors According to Natriello (1987), the teacher factor plays an indispensable role in the classroom assessment process Their classroom practices are affected

by their attitudes, perspectives on teaching and learning, and knowledge and skills on assessment In addition to Natriello’s idea (1987), McMillan and Workman (1999) present two major sources of influence on the practices of classroom assessment are teacher beliefs and values and external agents These influences are demonstrated in the Figure 2:

Figure 2: Factors affecting teachers’ assessment practices

(McMillan & Workman, 1999)

As can be seen from the model, there always exist conflicts between external factors and teacher beliefs and values This leads to a situation that

“external pressure cause teachers to engage in certain practices that may not be

in the best interests of student learning” (McMillan, 2018, p.24) However, the above-mentioned model does not mention the factor of teacher education, which

is found really influential in other research (Borko & Cumbo, 1993) Furthermore, teachers’ perceived assessment competency is reported another critical factor affecting teachers’ assessment practices according to self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977)

Teacher Beliefs and Values

Assessment practices

Based on previous studies, the factors were classified into two main ones which are internal factors (influences originating inside of the classroom) and external factors to teachers (influences originating outside of the classroom) The model of McMillan and Workman (1999) still served as the main background to this research in terms of the second research question

2.4 Speaking assessment

In this section, the construct and criteria for speaking assessment (the classroom assessment target), and the methods for speaking assessment (measurement) are discussed

2.4.1 Defining the construct of speaking competence

Speaking is seemingly a simple and natural activity but actually a complicated one (Galaczi, 2010) Therefore, it is challenging to have a fixed definition of what speaking is and what constitutes speaking As stated by Fulcher (2003, p.19), “no operational construct definition can ever capture the richness of what happens in a process as complex as human communication”

According to Burns and Joyce (1997), speaking is defined as an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving and processing information There are several factors, both internal and external, that have an impact on speaking activity such as the participants themselves, their collective experiences, the physical environment, and the purposes for speaking In order to speak, a person needs to go through three major stages: planning, selection, and production and each stage requires certain knowledge and skills (Bygate, 1987)

With regard to the construct of speaking, Heaton (1988) suggests four components of speaking including “accuracy, fluency, comprehensibility, and content” To be specific, in “accuracy”, Heaton emphasizes the importance of pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary Besides, comprehensibility refers to the process of understanding the utterances sent by the speaker and done by listener

However, in the model of Heaton, the author does not mention any strategy to

facilitate speakers and listeners to comprehend the speech or make it more

comprehensible

Fulcher (2003) also develops a framework for speaking construct, which

is presented in the following figure:

Figure 3: A framework for describing speaking construct

Compared to the construct of Heaton (1988), Fulcher (2003) pays

attention to the role of strategies in communication According to Bachman

(1990), strategic competence is “a general ability, which enables an individual

to make the most effective use of available abilities to carry out a given task”

(p.106) It means that interlocutors can maintain their conversation despite

lacking grammar or vocabulary For example, they are able to use

code-switching or non-linguistic actions such as mime or gestures About textual

Phonology: Pronunciation, Stress, IntonationAccuracy: Syntax (Grammar), Vocabulary, CohesionFluency: Hesitation, Repetition, etc

Strategic capacity

Achievement strategiesAvoidance strategies

Textual knowledge

Adjacency pairsTurn taking

Opening and closingPragmatic

knowledgeSociolinguistic

knowledge

pragmatic knowledge aims at measuring the ability to communicate intended message clearly and interpret received message correctly As for sociolinguistic knowledge, Bachman (1990) defines it as “the sensitivity to, or control of the conversation of language use that are determined by the features of the specific language use context; it enables us to perform language functions in ways that are appropriate to that context” With sociolinguistic knowledge, people know how to choose language suitable to situation and are aware of cultural differences

in communication

In this study, the construct of speaking developed by Fulcher (2003) was employed This framework is of great use because it helps build the assessing criteria in some questions in the questionnaire

2.4.2 Criteria for speaking assessment

To identify criteria for speaking assessment, it is necessary that the construct of speaking be considered After analyzing the above-mentioned construct in section 2.3.1 along with the suggestions of Knight (1992), following are the most common aspects of speaking that can be assessed:

• Grammar (range and accuracy)

According to Cambridge Dictionary, grammar is the rules about how words change their form and combine with other words to make sentences Rychtařík (2014) states that to assess students range of grammar, teachers take the number of grammatical rules into consideration (quantitative feature), meanwhile the accuracy of grammar is assessed through how accurately, i.e correctly, students are able to use them (qualitative feature)

• Vocabulary (range and accuracy)

As defined by Hornby (1989), vocabulary is “[the] total number of words that make up a language”, or “[a] body of words … used in a particular subject, etc.” In speaking assessment, vocabulary refers to students’ ability to make use of a range and accuracy of words used in a particular subject For example, when given a specific topic, students are able to select words suitable for the context to express their own ideas

• Pronunciation

Pronunciation is defined as the production of a sound system in which

no interference with communication either from the speakers’ or the listeners’ viewpoint is indicated (Paulston & Burder, 1976) According to Knight (1992), assessing pronunciation involves “pronouncing individual sounds (phonemic distinction), applying word and sentence stress and rhythm, intonation, and using linking, elision and assimilation” (p.295)

• Fluency (speed of talking, hesitation while speaking, hesitation before speaking)

Fluency is “rather the ability to know how to hesitate, stay silent or correct thus producing an acceptable and relaxed quality of speech” (Restrepo et al., 2003, p.70) When assessing students’ fluency, teachers often make judgements about how natural and fluent the speech is Therefore, students may not need to speak in a completely accurate way Besides, fluency also refers to the speed of talking, which means the number of words per minute is produced

self-• Conversational skill (topic development, initiative, and conversation maintenance)

To assess conversational skill, teachers need to employ speaking methods requiring interaction among students This skill describes “the ability to maintain

a conversation, maintain cohesion with one's own utterances as well as with the interlocutor's ones, take turns in conversation, correct oneself, use pause fillers, ask for clarification and to develop the topic of the discussion” (Knight, 1992, p.296)

• Sociolinguistic skill (distinguish register and style, use of cultural

references)

In speaking assessment, sociolinguistic skill emphasizes on students’ ability to communicate appropriately by using right registers and styles with proper attitude towards a specific topic, setting, and relationship Besides, this skill also measures students’ awareness of cultural references Therefore, this criterion is so complex and difficult to grasp that assessing it is a real challenge (Rychtařík, 2014)

• Non-verbal communication

Non-verbal communication is a term that describes "all communication events which transcend spoken or written words." (Knapp, 1972, p.20) It consists of of gestures, facial expressions, eye-contact, and conversational distance In the process of communication, using non-verbal communication can facilitate the understanding of the speech despite some language barriers

• Content (relevance of arguments and ideas)

Content is the message that is transferred to listeners When assessing the content of students speaking performance, teachers are advised to take the coherence and relevance of arguments and ideas into consideration This means that the construct of a speech should be logic, clear and easy to follow and be understood

2.4.3 Speaking assessment methods

According to Louma (2004), speaking activities are used for learners to achieve a goal, by having a role in a setting Teachers can judge their students in line with outcomes of the interaction In addition, Wigglesworth (2008) suggests that “oral assessment methods are designed to elicit ratable speech samples for measuring learners’ productive language skills through performance, allowing learners to exhibit the kinds of L2 skills that may be required in a real-world context” (p.111) With different methods, different speech patterns are collected for teachers to assess As stated by Lam (2018), the decision on what interactional format and oral production methods are used for assessing speaking depends upon the established course objectives and students’ level

Specific constructed-response speaking assessment methods can be seen

in the classification of Brown (2004) with 5 main categories based on speech samples elicited and the degree of interaction The characteristics of each type is explained in Table 1

Imitative Simply imitate a word or

phrase or possibly a sentence

None Mimicry tasks (a

word/phrase/sentence repetition)

Intensive Produce short stretches of oral

language designed to demonstrate competence in a narrow band of grammatical, phrasal, lexical, or

phonological relationship

Minimal Directed

response tasks, limited picture-cued tasks, etc

Responsive Involve interaction with an

interlocutor and test comprehension

Somewhat limited

Question and answer, paraphrasing, giving

instructions, etc

Interactive Interaction can take the two

forms of transactional language (exchange specific information)

or interpersonal exchanges (maintain social relationships)

Longer and more complex

Interview, play, discussion, conversation, debate, etc

Oral presentation, picture-cued description/ storytelling,

retelling a story/ news event, etc

Another classification of speaking assessment methods is suggested by

Cheng, Rogers and Hu (2004) These include “Oral reading”, “Oral interviews”, “Oral discussion with each student”, “Oral presentations”,

“Public speaking”, “Provide an oral description of an event or object”, “Retell

a story after listening to a passage”, “Peer assessment”, “Self-assessment”,

“Standardized speaking test”

As can be seen from the two above-mentioned classifications, speaking assessment methods are mostly similar However, some differences can still be noticed in the principles of classifications To be specific, the classification of Brown (2004) mentions some methods illustrating real-life activities such as

“role-play” and “debate” Meanwhile, that of Cheng, Rogers and Hu (2004) introduces assessment methods requiring high involvement of students such as

“peer assessment” and “self-assessment” Therefore, in this study, the methods

of classroom speaking performance of Brown (2004) and Cheng, Rogers and Hu (2004) were combined to classify speaking assessment methods in the questionnaire

Thus, this section has discussed important components of speaking classroom assessment namely the speaking construct and measurement Regarding the other dimensions of classroom assessment, namely the purposes, interpretation, and use of classroom speaking assessment, the features of general classroom assessment will be used to inform the research instrument design

2.5 Requirements for teachers in conducting speaking assessment in

Vietnam

A review of the requirements for speaking assessment is also vital to this study because it can localize the definition of “assessment practices” to match Vietnamese teachers In order to guide teachers in the process of conducting

language assessment, a number of policies have been enacted in Vietnam This study only focuses on those for secondary school teachers

According to Dispatch No 5333/ BGDĐT-GDTrH issued by MOET (2014), secondary school students’ speaking skills are assessed through various

in-class activities such as Question and Answer; Picture description; telling /Narrative; Guided Speech; Dialogue; Situation; Interview/Role-play; Presentation; Debate; Discussion; Simulation, etc In addition, the assessment

Story-methods should include both teachers’ assessment and students’ assessment (self- and peer assessment) With regard to assessment feedback, it can be delivered through different forms: quantitative (score) and qualitative (comments, ranking) Besides, students’ test should be designed based on learned knowledge, skills and expected outcomes corresponding to their grade

As stated in the Dispatch 7972/BGDĐT-GDTrH (MOET, 2013), students finishing grade 6 are expected to reach level A2.1, while level A2.2 for grade 7 students, level A2.3 for grade 8 ones and level B1 for grade 9 ones

It is required in Dispatch 5333 that in each academic semester, there are

at least two on-going speaking tests, which are conducted in the form of

“Question and Answer” Regarding periodical 45-minute tests and end-of-term tests, students are also expected to get involved in speaking part, whose weight

of assessment ranges from 20% to 30% in the total scores

Despite the requirement of conducting speaking assessment in Dispatch

No 5333, Dispatch No 3333/ BGDĐT-GDTrH (MOET, 2016) states that periodical 45-minute tests and end-of-term tests need to include at least three skills: Reading, Listening and Writing It can be understood that speaking tests are not necessary implemented in the context of secondary schools The difference in the requirement of two aforementioned dispatches can cause great confusion to teachers

In summary, policies enacted by MOET have guided secondary school teachers in terms of methods, types of speaking tests, types of feedback to students for in-class speaking assessment These information helped to shape

some questions in the questionnaire about speaking methods, feedback and final report types and types of speaking test

2.6 Related studies

2.6.1 Related studies on classroom assessment practices

In 2004, Cheng, Rogers and Hu conducted comparative research, which reported the purposes, methods, and procedures of classroom assessment in three contexts, namely Hong Kong, Beijing and Canada There were 263 teachers in total, who agreed to participate in the survey With regard to classroom purposes, they are classified into 3 main ones, which are student centered-, instruction-, and administration-based assessment purposes To be specific, most of the participants believed that the most important purpose is to obtain information on student’s progress, while the least important one is to provide information to an outside funding agency In addition, the instructors in Hong Kong identified a significantly fewer number of assessment purposes in their teaching than did the instructors in Canada and Beijing (Cheng, Rogers & Hu, 2004) Concerning assessment methods for reading, writing, and speaking/listening, the authors categorized them into instructor-made, student-conducted assessment and standardized testing In the area of speaking and listening, the most common format in all three settings was student oral presentations In light of procedures,

of classroom assessments, the respondents were asked to indicate the sources of their test items, the methods for giving feedback and the amount of time for assessment activities The majority of teachers in three contexts stated that tests were mostly developed by themselves or taken from other instructors However, there still existed a significant difference among sources of test used in Beijing compared to remaining countries In terms of time spent on assessment and evaluation, only subtle differences could be found among the three distributions

In summary, the findings illustrated the complex and multifaceted roles that assessment plays in different teaching and learning settings (Cheng, Rogers

& Hu, 2004) The three authors also mentioned a number of differences in the decision making of teachers in Hong Kong, Beijing and Canada when they

carried out classroom assessment However, what caused the differences in their assessment decision making was not explained by the researchers

2.6.2 Related studies on factors affecting teachers’ assessment practices

There have been a growing number of studies exploring the relationship between factors and teachers’ assessment practices in the context of classrooms

In European context, Acar-Erdol and Yıldızlı (2018) carry out surveys and observations with 288 teachers from primary schools to high schools in Turkey Based on the results, it showed that student characteristics was the main factor influencing classroom assessment processes at all levels of schools Regarding the primary schools, the least effective factor on teachers’ practice was the national examinations because primary students did not have to take a national examination after the completion of primary school Meanwhile, that factor had one of the biggest impacts on the classroom assessment practices used

by the teachers at secondary and high schools

Concerning Asian regions, Shih and Wang (2010) examine factors that affects the choices of English Language teachers towards assessment methods in Singapore As stated by two authors, educational context is the most influential factor while the schooling history was the least influential one In the context of Taiwan, Yang (2008) indicates that teachers’ self-efficacy, education and their beliefs about the pedagogical benefits of assessment significantly influenced teachers’ assessment practices, while their beliefs about the difficulty of implementing assessment is negatively correlated with teachers’ practices Scaling down the topic to Vietnamese context, there has been very few studies identifying factors that determine teachers’ practices of classroom assessment, especially in secondary schools Therefore, this study wishes to bridge this gap, particularly in the field of speaking skill assessment

2.6.3 Related studies on practices of classroom speaking assessment

A body of research has been conducted to investigate the practice of class English speaking assessment in different contexts, for example, ranging from Asian context like schools in Korean (e.g., Kim, 2003; Lee, 2010) to European context like schools in Norway (e.g., Agasøster, 2015)

In the context of Vietnam, there have been several studies related to class speaking assessment such as the studies of Truong (2010), Tran and Nguyen (2017), and Nguyen and Tran (2018) To be specific, Nguyen and Tran (2018) explore EFL teachers’ perceptions of in-class English speaking assessment The authors collected survey data from 42 EFL teachers at different high schools in Quang Tri Province before having five out of them partake in interviews The research findings showed that although the participants had adequate understanding of in-class speaking assessment, more theoretical and practical knowledge about language assessment should be introduced to them Besides, among task types of speaking assessment, the teachers claimed a lack

in-of familiarity with portfolios and student self-assessments

It can be seen that in-class speaking assessment has been a topic of interest in Vietnam but it has just been explored on a relatively small scale Specifically, all aforementioned studies emphasize on the practices of classroom speaking assessment at the level of high-school education while a lack of research for secondary and primary schools can be noticed Therefore, this study was carried out, focusing on the practices of classroom speaking assessment at secondary schools

Summary

In summary, this chapter has provided a brief overview of key terms related to the topic of the study, namely assessment in general, classroom assessment, factors affecting classroom assessment and speaking assessment Among the reviewed frameworks of classroom assessment, five components of classroom assessment suggested by McMillan (2015) has been chosen as the theoretical background of the whole study To examine factors influencing the practices of classroom speaking assessment, the study followed the framework of McMillan and Workman (1999) Besides, the chapter also mentioned the current policies

of speaking assessment in Vietnam and review related studies to the research along with identifying their gaps The following chapters will focus on the study

- its methodology and findings – under the light of the theories discussed above

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides information about the method employed to carry out the study A detailed description of the setting and participants is also presented

3.1 Settings of the study

The study was conducted at 10 public secondary schools, which are situated in 10 different sub-districts in Phu Tho Town, Phu Tho Province 9 out

of 10 secondary schools automatically admit students graduating from primary schools, whose household registration is in the school’s sub-districts The other school, named Hung Vuong Secondary School is allowed to recruit students from any location as long as these ones pass its entrance exam and fulfill school’s requirements

Apart from the aforementioned difference, 10 secondary schools share the following similarities Firstly, the number of students does not exceed 42 students per class Secondly, there are 2 academic semesters for schools and the research will be conducted during the second one Last but not least, students at

10 schools have 3 English periods per week with the same curriculum, which are totally taught by non-native speaker teachers of English

3.2 Sampling and participations

The target participants are English teachers from ten secondary schools

in Phu Tho Town, who have bachelor degrees in Vietnam Only one teacher holds a master's degree Besides, to be qualified to teach at secondary schools, they are required to achieve level B2 in Vietnamese Common European Framework of Reference for Language Proficiency At present, all teachers are employing new English textbooks under the National Foreign Language 2020 Project of MOET

Out of 28 teachers in Phu Tho Town, two teachers are male Besides, most

of the participants have been teaching English for more than 10 years with their average class size of 35 students and average workload of 16 periods per week Among the respondents, only one teacher shares that she never has any training

on language assessment in general

The research was divided into two phases In the first phase, the research population involved 28 teachers from all secondary schools in the local area All

of the participants in this phase filled in the questionnaire to answer questions about their practices of speaking classroom assessment In the second phase which conducted semi-structured interviews, 8 participants were included to answer questions about factors influencing their assessment practices

In the first phase using questionnaire, because the author involved the whole research population of 28 teachers as the sample, no selection method was required In the second phase, the researcher chose participants based on the results of questionnaire To be specific, the author conducted interviews with three teachers spending the largest amount of time on classroom assessment and five teachers with the lowest amount of assessment time

3.3 Data collection

3.3.1 Data collection instruments

This research employed mixed methods design to gain a comprehensive understanding of teachers’ practices of classroom speaking assessment To collect quantitative data, questionnaires were designed to obtain information about teachers’ purposes, methods and procedures of classroom speaking assessment It is undeniably that questionnaire is one of the primary sources for obtaining data in any research endeavor On the other hand, for qualitative data, semi-structured interview was chosen in order to give more insights into factors affecting teachers’ practices of classroom speaking assessment

as the generalization of the study

In this research, questionnaire was chosen as one of the data collection instruments as it allowed the researcher to collect straight information about the teachers’ practices of classroom speaking assessment, specifically their assessment purposes, targets, measurement, interpretation and use The questionnaire was carefully designed based on the literature review After constructing a full questionnaire, the author experienced two rounds of piloting

to examine its reliability and validity In the first round, the researcher consulted the supervisor for comments and further refinement In the second round, the researcher piloted the questionnaire with one teacher, who was teaching English

at a secondary school in Hanoi, where the author was doing teaching practicum Once receiving comments and suggestions, the research redefined the questionnaire and its final version was made

The questionnaire begins with a brief overview of research title, the purpose of conducting the questionnaire, the desire for participants’ cooperation

as well as the confirmation of data’s confidentiality

The main part of questionnaire consists of six sections In section A, there are 13 items gaining insights in teachers’ purposes of conducting classroom speaking assessment which are instructional, student-centred and administrative ones With five items in section B and eight items in section C, the researcher aimed at investigating targets of assessments and criteria used to assess speaking

in classroom Consisting of nine items, section D gathers information about methods for assessing speaking performance in classroom Section E includes nine items to dig deeply into the procedure of carrying speaking assessment in

terms of source of assessment items and tasks, process to design test items, types

of assessment evidence, methods for interpreting assessment results and providing feedback and reporting, and time spent on assessment and evaluation With regard to section F, it collects data about teachers’ background and personal information This helped the researcher contact teachers for later interviews The frameworks used to build the questionnaires are listed in Table 2

Table 2

Frameworks for questionnaires

(2004) Assessment objectives or

E – Question 1 Cheng, Rogers and Hu

(2004)

E – Question 2 + 3 Dispatch 5333 (MOET)

E – Question 4 McNamara (1996)

E – Question 5 McMillan (2015) Interpretation E – Question 6 Blerkom (2009)