Asian Association for Language Assessment

This workshop will address practical considerations and principles of best practice in assessing second language (L2) speaking. The focus is on ways that the construct of spoken proficiency has been defined and measured in L2 assessment instruments, on sources of variability in L2 speaking performances that could have bearing on the score that is assigned, and on the validity of human- vs machine-mediated assessments of speech.

The workshop will begin with a historical overview of assessing speaking. Being able to engage in effective oral communication in the dominant language of a given society is often considered essential for performing well on the job, succeeding in the academic arena, accessing vital social services, and, from a more macro perspective, integrating into society or mitigating social isolation. From this perspective, it may seem intuitive that value and emphasis would have uniformly been placed on assessing L2 speaking over the past century. In fact, concerns that the “ear and tongue skills” are “less measurable because they are less tangible, more subject to variation, and probably will involve the cumbersome and time-consuming expedient of the individual oral examination” (Ludenberg, 1929, p. 195) have led to speaking assessment being marginalized relative to the assessment of other skills in some L2 settings. Comparisons of the treatment of speaking within different assessment traditions over time will serve as a launching pad for highlighting key issues in assessing speaking, including the unique challenges posed by the spoken (as opposed to the written) medium due to the transient and intangible nature of speech. Workshop activities will centre on various sources of influence on speaking test scores (e.g., test-takers’ output, speaking tasks, raters, rating scales, interlocutors) and on the role of technological innovations in allaying historical concerns about the reliability of the human scoring of speech.

Lundeberg, O. K. (1929). Recent developments in audition-speech tests. The Modern Language Journal, 14(3), 193-202.