Assessing Speaking Skills

in the Classroom
ISABELA VILLAS BOAS

­Framing the Issue

The traditional way of assessing students’ oral performance is by way of formal

oral tests, administered at the end of a teaching period. Typically, students sit in
pairs in front of the examiner, who is often their own teacher, for an “unbiased
judgment” of their speaking skills as they perform a task or a number of tasks
based on a given situation. For test security, reliability, and, arguably, validity
­purposes, the students cannot know in advance the task they are going to be
asked to perform. The teacher listens, takes notes, and gives a grade based on a
set of scoring rubrics. Normally, students have only one shot at the task. This
model for assessing speaking skills is used in high stakes proficiency tests and
replicated in EFL/ESL classes due to a common belief that the role of a teacher as
it is to teaching speaking is to prepare students for standardized proficiency tests.
However, an important question that English-language teachers must ask is if
this practice is in keeping with current trends and research in classroom-based
assessment.
In the October 2012 special issue of the ELT Journal—The Janus Papers—Stephen
Stoynoff looks back at the changes in language assessment and analyzes the transi-
tions under way. With the emerging dominance of a sociocultural paradigm in
which learning is seen as a developmental, socially constructed, interactive, and
reflective process, classroom-based assessment will need to include the following:
●● integrate the teacher fully into the assessment process including planning
assessment, evaluating performance, and making decisions based on the results
of assessment;
●● be conducted by and under the direction of the learners’ teacher (as opposed to
an external examiner);
●● yield multiple samples of learner performance that are collected over time and
by means of multiple assessment procedures and activities;

The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, First Edition.

Edited by John I. Liontas (Project Editor: Margo DelliCarpini).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0246

eelt0246.indd 1 10/30/2017 9:04:34 PM

 2 Assessing Speaking Skills in the Classroom

●● be applied and adapted to meet the teaching and learning objectives of differ-
ent classes and students;
●● integrate learners into the assessment process and utilize self- and peer-­
assessment in addition to teacher-assessment of learning;
●● foster opportunities for learners to engage in self-initiated enquiry;
●● offer learners immediate and constructive feedback; and
●● monitor, evaluate, and modify procedures to optimize teaching and learning
(Stoynoff, 2012, pp. 527–8).
Formative assessment, which is meant to focus on learning and learners, is in
perfect sync with the criteria outlined above. Formative assessment is “specifically
intended to provide feedback on performance to improve and accelerate learning”
(Sadler, 1998, p. 77). In addition, there is a growing interest among teachers and
curriculum design specialists in integrating classroom teaching, learning, and
assessment so that assessment processes, learning objectives, and instructional
strategies are aligned and reinforce one another. Formative assessments of speak-
ing, rather than traditional, summative oral tests, are ideal for achieving this type
of alignment.
Formative assessment is an alternative to traditional summative assessments, so
the term alternative assessment is also frequently used in the literature. According to
the National Capital Learning Resource Center (2004), alternative assessment:
●● is built around topics or issues of interest to the students,
●● replicates real-world communication contexts and situations,
●● involves multi-stage tasks and real problems that require creative use of lan-
guage rather than simple repetition,
●● requires learners to produce a quality product or performance,
●● includes evaluation criteria and standards that are known to the student,
●● involves interaction between the assessor and person assessed, and
●● allows for self-evaluation and self-correction as students proceed.
Alternative assessment is congruent with Stoynoff’s (2012) recommendations
for assessment in general and the assessment of speaking skills in the classroom in
particular. O’Malley and Valdez Pierce (1996) suggest that assessment of oral lan-
guage should “focus on a student’s ability to interpret and convey meaning for
authentic purposes in interactive contexts” (p. 61). They also emphasize that it
should include both fluency and accuracy. Alternative and formative assessments
are, thus, the perfect fit to achieve this goal.

­Making the Case

English-language classrooms with a communicative and social-interactive meth-

odology typically include a great variety of speaking activities as instructional
strategies, with well-defined learning outcomes. However, the traditional approach
to assessing oral skills is to wait until a certain number of learning outcomes have

eelt0246.indd 2 10/30/2017 9:04:34 PM

 Assessing Speaking Skills in the Classroom 3

been achieved before administering an oral test that encompasses all of them. This
is a summative process because it occurs at the end of instruction. An English-
language teacher might have the opportunity to give feedback to students on their
performances, but he/she will probably not be able to make adjustments in
instruction, reteach the information again, and re-assess the learners a second time.
Formative assessment in the classroom is focused on assessing learning out-
comes right after they have been worked on or practiced by learners. Then, teach-
ers use the feedback from such assessments to decide whether to move on in the
instructional process or revisit the instructional objectives, for later re-assessment.
Because formative assessment aims at improving instruction, it is used during the
course, and feedback is provided to students as they are learning (Coombe, Folse,
and Hubley, 2007). Formative tests or assessments are tests for learning, not of
learning (Brown, 2004).
Formative assessment should be directly linked to the learning outcomes and
instructional strategies developed to attain such outcomes. It should be conducted
right after instruction and in a systematic manner. Ideally, the interconnectedness
is so natural and fluid that instructional strategies and the assessments are natu-
rally intertwined and students hardly notice when practice finishes and assess-
ment begins. In addition, alternative, formative assessment is consistent with the
current trends for assessment described by Stoynoff (2012). Also, this type of
assessment also gives learners the opportunity for self and peer-assessment, as
well as self-correction.
As mentioned above, high-quality ELT with a communicative, social-interactive
methodology encompasses instructional strategies to teach speaking skills that are
aligned with learning outcomes, and students probably receive appropriate cor-
rective feedback from the teacher. However, the summative assessment of these
outcomes is usually delayed and separate from the instructional experience. What
I am suggesting is that instructional strategies be used for the purposes of forma-
tive assessment and that a combination of short, multiple types of formative
speaking assessments might replace the traditional, summative speaking test or
oral interview. Performance on these formative assessments might also count
toward students’ final grades in the course in some way.

­Pedagogical Implications

Performance tests are carefully designed to pose tasks “that are based directly on
the learners’ intended (or hypothesized) use of the target language” (Bailey, 1998,
p. 215). There are many types of performance assessments of speaking that can be
conducted in the classroom. Coombe et al. (2007) suggest assessments such as oral
presentations, debates on a controversial topic, reading aloud, retelling stories,
verbal essays, and extemporaneous speaking. O’Malley and Valdez Pierce (1996)
also suggest using information-gap activities, picture-cued discussions, improvi-
sations, simulations, and oral interviews. Other types of techniques that can be
used for oral assessments are dialogues and problem-solving activities. While

eelt0246.indd 3 10/30/2017 9:04:34 PM

 4 Assessing Speaking Skills in the Classroom

there are many techniques available for use as performance assessments, it is

important to reiterate that the chosen technique needs to be aligned with the learn-
ing objectives and the instructional strategies used in the classroom.
In performance types of assessment, students should be assessed by way of
scoring rubrics or checklists that are also perfectly aligned with the learning out-
comes that have been communicated to the students. The first step in designing
the rubrics is to define the dimensions or criteria of oral language to be assessed.
General comprehensibility, grammar, and pronunciation are typical dimensions
for oral language assessments. The weight given to each dimension will depend
on the learning outcomes. These rubrics should also highlight what students can
do rather than what they cannot do (O’Malley and Valdez Pierce, 1996).
Scoring rubrics can be either holistic or analytic. Holistic rubrics focus on one
general dimension and describe the expected levels of performance, such as
Levels 1 through 4, along with a broad description of the characteristics that define
each level. Levels can also be described in prose rather than with numbers, such as
“fully,” “mostly,” “partially,” and “not present.” Teachers should select descriptors
that are the most transparent to learners. Analytic rubrics, on the other hand, are
designed to include several dimensions and each dimension is rated separately.
For example, fluency can be one dimension of oral language proficiency in an
analytic rubric. Other dimensions can be grammar, pronunciation, and vocabu-
lary. An analytic rubric resembles a grid with the criteria for performance listed in
the left most column and levels of performance listed across the top row. O’Malley
and Valdez Pierce (1996) recommend analytic scales for diagnostic information,
such as students’ strengths and weaknesses, which is exactly what classroom
assessments should convey. In analytic rubrics the dimensions can be weighed
differently. For example, if the assessment is intended to focus more on fluency
than on accuracy, the fluency trait would be given more weight and noted in the
instructions for calculating the final score (e.g., double the points for fluency).
Checklists are different from rubrics in that they are used to determine what
features of performance are present or absent. As such, they do not include an
evaluation of performance. Nevertheless, they might be an important first step in
helping students achieve instructional goals. For example, the first step in helping
students make effective oral presentations might be to give them a list of features
that need to be present, such as starting on time, stating their names and the title
of their presentation, having a PowerPoint presentation, creating between 15 and
20 slides for their presentation, and facing the audience during the presentation.
Checklists can be very useful and practical for short classroom assessments in
which the teacher has to look at a number of students almost at the same time or
quickly in succession. The use of rubrics and checklists represents a way of tack-
ling assessment in a more communicative manner than with the use of traditional
­summative assessments. In addition, rubrics and checklists are useful when the
focus is on real-world tasks.
Below is a practical example of how the formative assessment of speaking can be
put into practice in a classroom, even at a beginning level of English proficiency. The
assessment activity is aligned with the learning outcomes and instructional strategies.

eelt0246.indd 4 10/30/2017 9:04:34 PM

 Assessing Speaking Skills in the Classroom 5

Level: Beginning
Assessment type: Dialogue in pairs
Learning outcome: Given a visual prompt, students will be able to perform in a
short dialogue in which they greet their interlocutor and introduce themselves
using the appropriate greeting words, with minor pronunciation errors that do
not hamper communication
Assessment tool: Checklist based on can-do statements.

This assessment activity is an observation-type activity at the basic level

(Brown, 2004, pp. 266–70). It is the beginning of the course and students have
been exposed to a dialogue with greetings. They have gone through a series of
instructional strategies in the textbook, ranging from very controlled to less con-
trolled practice.

1. Students read and listen to a dialogue in which two people are introducing
themselves.
2. Students repeat the dialogue and then practice it with different partners, using
their true information.
3. Students fill in the blanks of other similar dialogues with the missing words,
check answers with each other and confirm them with the teacher.
4. Students read and listen to another dialogue in which the interlocutors intro-
duce themselves and then greet each other.
5. Students practice the dialogue, first just by repeating the one in the book, and
then by using their own information.
6. Students fill in the blanks of dialogues with the missing words.

The students practice the dialogue orally the first few times with the textbooks
open, and when they feel confident about their performance, they close their
books. The teacher writes some key words on the board:
Hi / Hello
Name?
Nice ….

Students work in pairs and practice the dialogues, now with their books closed,
using the key words on the board. Finally, students are asked to present their
­dialogues to the whole class.
During the presentation of the dialogues, the teacher can assess performances
by way of “real-time, almost a surreptitious recording of student verbal and
­nonverbal behavior” (Brown, 2004, p. 267). As each pair of students present the
dialogue, the teacher uses a short checklist.
The checklist is very simple and straightforward, allowing the teacher to
quickly assess the presence of each performance indicator for each student. At
the end of the activity, students receive their checklist, which clearly shows
whether they were able to reach the learning outcomes described in the checklist.
Based on ­students’ performances, the teacher decides whether to go back or
move on.

eelt0246.indd 5 10/30/2017 9:04:34 PM

 6 Assessing Speaking Skills in the Classroom

Table 1  Speaking Assessment Checklist.

Yes No
I was able to do the following: (1 pt.) (0 pt.)

Greet a peer and respond to a greeting.

Ask for a name correctly.
Respond to a question about my name correctly.
Say, “Nice to meet you.”
Respond to “Nice to meet you.”

In addition to the checklist, pair presentations given in front of the whole class,
there are two additional alternatives that teachers can consider. The first alterna-
tive is for the teacher to go from pair to pair around the classroom, listen to their
­dialogue, and fill out the checklist. The pairs of students can summon the teacher
when they feel they are ready for the assessment. While the teacher is busy going
around the room and listening to individual pairs, the pairs who have already
been assessed can work on another task or continue to practice on their own.
If the students have smartphones or the school has a set of iPads for classroom
use, a second and very practical alternative is to have students record their
­dialogues rather than present them to the group or the teacher. They can then
­listen to themselves, use the checklist, and decide if they are satisfied with their
performance or not. If they are not satisfied, they delete the file and record the
dialogue again. This process encourages students to engage in self- and peer-
assessment, using the checklist above for this purpose. The teacher will later listen
to each recording and assess the students, saving classroom time. The teacher can
also record the feedback and send it to students, adding yet another assessment
opportunity to students’ learning experience.
Throughout the course, the teacher can conduct a number of similar assessments
of speaking aligned with each learning outcome. Besides dialogues, different
­strategies can be used, such as short oral presentations. Rather than a checklist and
depending on the targeted learning outcomes, the teacher might design an ­analytic
rubric that comprises all the traits being assessed, such as fluency, language use,
content, and pronunciation and a description of the levels. If the ELT program
requires a grade for oral performance or oral tests, the grades for these multiple
activities can be added up and comprise the oral performance grade.
This model of assessment of speaking skills in the classroom is in keeping with
the principles suggested by Stoynoff (2012) because it:

●● is composed of multiple samples of student performance;

●● is conducted by the learners’ instructor rather than by outside examiners;
●● is based on performance in authentic, real-world tasks;
●● involves the learner in self- and peer-assessment;
●● offers learners immediate and constructive feedback; and
●● provides opportunities for modification of instructional strategies to optimize
learning.

eelt0246.indd 6 10/30/2017 9:04:34 PM

 Assessing Speaking Skills in the Classroom 7

In addition, the alternative, formative assessment activity is aligned with the

learning outcomes and the instructional strategies, and it is conducted right after
instruction, making the assessment a natural, transparent component of the class-
room. Students do not notice when the teaching ends and the assessment begins.
These examples of classroom speaking assessments are representative of what
assessment of speaking skills in the 21st century classroom should look like. More
importantly, the washback from the use of alternative, formative speaking assess-
ments with multiple and different types of performances being assessed is likely
to have a very positive effect on learners and learning, as well as for teachers and
teaching. For the type of classroom assessment that I describe in this entry, the
emphasis is on a variety of specific and clearly defined learning outcomes that are
connected to instructional strategies. Also, the use of this approach to the class-
room assessment of speaking skills guarantees that a good amount of classroom
time is necessarily spent on the development of the speaking skills.

SEE ALSO: Alternative Assessment; Assessing Spoken Production; Assessment

of Learning and Assessment for Learning; Peer Assessment; Self-Assessment;
Speaking Assessment; Types of Assessment

References

Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions, and directions.
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment—principles and classroom practices. White Plains,
NY: Pearson Education.
Coombe, C., Folse, K., & Hubley, N. (2007). A practical guide to assessing English language
learners. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC). (2004). Assessing learning:
Alternative assessment. In The essentials of language teaching. Retrieved from http://www.
nclrc.org/essentials/assessing/alternative.htm
O’Malley, M., & Valdez Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language learners.
White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education,
5(1), 77–84.
Stoynoff, S. (2012). Looking backward and forward at classroom-based language assessment.
ELT Journal Special Issue: The Janus Papers V, 66(4), 523–32.

Suggested Readings

Valdez Pierce, L. (2003). Assessing English language learners. Washington, DC: National
Education Association.
Wren, D. G. (2008). Using formative assessment to increase learning. Research report from
the  Dept. of Research, Evaluation and Assessment, Virginia Beach City Public
Schools.  Retrieved from http://www.vbschools.com/accountability/research_briefs/
ResearchBriefFormAssmtFinal.pdf

eelt0246.indd 7 10/30/2017 9:04:34 PM