Luận văn thạc sĩ VNU ULIS a study on the construction of a marking scheme for end of semester english oral tests for 10th grade students at cam giang high school in hai duong

Aims and objectives of the study

The study is aimed at constructing a marking scheme for end-of-semester English oral tests for 10th grade students at Cam Giang High School in Hai Duong with hope to find an effective tool for assessing students‟ English speaking competence

In order to achieve this aim, the following objectives will be addressed in the study:

+ To find out the marking criteria and descriptors of the target marking scheme + To investigate the feasibility of the proposed marking scheme

Research question

The study aims at answering the following questions:

1 What are the marking criteria of the marking scheme for end-of-semester English oral test for 10 th grade students at Cam Giang High School?

2 What are the descriptors for each criterion of the marking scheme for end-of -semester English oral test for 10 th grade students at Cam Giang High School?

Scope of the study

The scope of the research has been made quite clear from the title: “A study on the construction of a marking scheme for end-of-semester English oral tests for 10th grade students at Cam Giang High School in Hai Duong”

Firstly, the study only focuses on oral testing, namely the construction of a marking scheme To be more specific, it refers to the process to find out the marking criteria and descriptors for a marking scheme which helps teachers at Cam Giang High School assess students‟ oral test This will help teachers at Cam Giang High School assess students‟ speaking more accurately and objectively Secondly, the subject of the study is restricted to tenth-grade students at Cam Giang High School.

Significance of the study

The study is of great significance to both the 10 th grade students and the teachers at Cam Giang High School because it may have a great contribution to teaching and learning speaking For teachers, the study helps them to find a useful assessment tool which ensures objectiveness and fairness A marking scheme is an assessment tool that clearly indicates marking criteria which let students know what is expected of them and how to achieve aim It is hopeful that the study will give students opportunity to do self-assessment to reflect on the learning process.

Method of the study

As the aim of the study to construct a marking scheme for end-of-semester English oral tests for 10th grade students at Cam Giang High School in Hai Duong, the study is designed to use a combination of intuitive, qualitative and quantitative methods Besides, many sources such as books, newspapers and some sources on the internet have been read by the researcher The findings are reported based on the experts‟ and the teachers‟ responses in the interview and students‟ scores on oral test

Moreover, constant discussions with the supervisor are of great significance.

Design of the study

The study is divided into three main parts:

Part I (Introduction) includes the rationale, the aims and objectives, the scope, the significance, the research questions, the method and the design of the study

Part II (Development) consists of chapters as follows

Chapter 1 (Literature review) presents the theoretical background of the study and the review of the available marking schemes and previous studies

Chapter 2 (Methodology) describes in detail the research methodology which consists of the context of the study, the information of the subjects, instruments of data collection, procedures of data collection and methods of data analysis

Chapter 3 (Results and Discussion) reports the statistical results and the analysis of the data

Part III (Conclusion) closes the study by summarizing the whole study with concluding remarks and offering some limitations and suggestions for further studies.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Communicative competence

During the past few years, the concept of communicative competence has been discussed and redefined by many researchers and authors The term

“communicative competence” was introduced by Hymes (1972) and he emphasized that language consisted of a wider range of competence while Chomsky (1965) just concerned about grammatical competence Hymes stated that language can only be understood if the rules for grammar, speech acts and discourse are analyzed in relation to the speech community and the context (Hymes, 1972) According to Luoma (2004) communicative competence focuses on language user‟s means of communicating, which may affect the choice of more authentic learning material and communicative tasks as learning material in language classrooms

Canale and Swain (1980) proposed one of the first theoretical models of communicative competence The model distinguishes between communicative competence and communicative performance, as communicative competence is knowledge about grammar, sociolinguistic knowledge, strategic competence, while communicative performance is the actual communication However, Canale (1983) revised this model and used the term “actual communication” instead of

“performance” He also asserted that: “Communicative competence refers to both knowledge and skill in using the knowledge when interacting in actual communication” (Canale, 1983, p 5)

Bachman and Palmer (1996) developed another model in communicative competence and language testing: the model of communicative language ability

The model focuses more on the interaction between context and language use (Fulcher and Davidson, 2007) The term “language ability” consists of language knowledge and strategic competence Language knowledge includes both organizational knowledge (grammatical and textual knowledge) and pragmatic knowledge (illocutionary competence and sociolinguistic competence) Strategic competence involves the ability to assess whether the situation is practicable and to plan for the next movement (Luoma, 2004) Bachman and Palmer (1996) claimed that their model can be used as a checklist for developing language tests

1.1.1 Communicative competence in the CEFR

The CEFR is the Common European Framework for language learning, teaching and assessment, which focuses on the nature of language use and the language user and the implications for learning and teaching (Council of Europe, 2001) The Common European Framework defines levels of proficiency which allow learners‟ progress to be measured at each stage of learning and provides criteria for assessing four English skills: reading, speaking, listening and writing Of all skills, speaking is very important and within communication the learners can learn and apply various skills The Framework consist of three proficiency levels which are referred to respectively as Basic User: A1, A2, Independent User: B1, B2, and Proficiency User: C1, C2 (Council of Europe, 2001)

Communicative competence in the narrower sense consists of three components, linguistic competences, sociolinguistic competence and pragmatic competences (Council of Europe, 2001, p 108) In the model of communicative competence of Canale and Swain (1980), there are also three components, grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence Although the CEFR and Canale and Swain label these categories slightly differently, they use similar categories to describe competences In the following paper, the categories from the CEFR are particular relevance for the assessment of speaking will be discussed

Linguistic competence is considered the core of the model of communicative competence Linguistic competence is divided into lexical competence, grammatical competence, semantic competence, phonological competence and orthoepic competence (Council of Europe, 2001, p.109)

Lexical competence is defined as “knowledge of, and ability to use, the vocabulary of a language, consists of lexical elements and grammatical elements” (Council of Europe, 2001, p.110) Lexical element includes fixed expression and single word forms to enhance language on the different levels of meaning The CEFR also presents illustrative scale for the range of vocabulary knowledge and the ability to control that knowledge to specify these competences (Council of Europe, 2001, p.112)

Grammatical competence is described as “knowledge of, and ability to use, the grammatical resources of a language” (Council of Europe, 2001, p 112)

Grammatical competence is the ability to understand and express meaning by producing and recognizing well-formed phrased and sentences (Council of Europe,

2001) To measure grammatical competence, the CEFR has developed an illustrative scale demonstrating levels of grammatical accuracy (Council of Europe,

2001, p 114) Grammatical competence also includes morphology and syntax which the learners need to be aware of Morphology deals with the organization of words and the ways to modifying words forms and syntax deals with the organization of words into meaningful sentences (Council of Europe, 2001)

Semantic competence is “the learner‟s awareness and control of the organization of meaning” (Council of Europe, 2001, p 115 )

Phonological competence involves the knowledge of the sound-units, words stress, sentences stress, sentence rhyme and intonation (Council of Europe, 2001, p 116) Orthoepic competence involve knowledge of spelling conventions, ability to consult a dictionary, knowledge of the implication of written form for phrasing and intonation and ability to solve ambiguity in various context (Council of Europe,

Sociolinguistic competence is “concerned with the knowledge and skill required to deal with the social dimension of language use” (Council of Europe, 2001, p 118)

Sociolinguistic competences include linguistic markers of social relations, politeness conventions, expressions of folk-wisdom, register differences, and dialect and accent (Council of Europe, 2001, p 119) Canale and Swain defined sociolinguistic competence as “the ability to communicate appropriately in a variety of contexts, this includes both verbal and non-verbal communication” (Canale and Swain, 1980)

Linguistic markers of social relations vary from language to language They include use of choice of greeting, use and choice of address forms, conventions for turn-taking in conversations and the use of choice of expletive (Council of Europe,

Politeness conventions vary from one culture to another and are a frequent source of inter-ethnic misunderstanding when polite expressions are literally interpreted (Council of Europe, 2001, p 119)

Expressions of folk wisdom are fixed formulas about daily life, often used in newspaper headlines The expressions include proverbs, idioms, and expressions for beliefs, attitudes and values and are often used in graffiti and on T-shirt slogans (Council of Europe, 2001, p 120)

Register differences refer to “systematic differences between varieties of language used in different contexts” (Council of Europe, 2001, p 120) Register differences express differences in level of formality: frozen, formal, neutral, informal, familiar and intimate (Council of Europe, 2001, p 120)

Dialects and accents perform people‟s origin, sociolinguistic competences include the ability to distinguish between various social classes, regional provenances, national origins, ethnicities and occupational groups (Council of Europe, 2001, p 121)

Pragmatic competences include discourse competence and functional competence

“Discourse competence is the ability of a user/ learner to arrange sentences in sequences so as to produce coherent stretches of language” (Council of Europe,

2001.p 123) The CEFR has included illustrative scale with aspects of discourse competence: Flexibility to circumstances, turn-taking in interactions, thematic development and coherence and cohesion (Council of Europe, 2001, pp: 123-125)

Functional competence is “concerned with the use of spoken discourse and written texts in communication for particular purpose” (Council of Europe, 2001, p 125)

Functional competence also includes knowledge and ability to use the schema patterns of social interaction) which underline communication, such as verbal exchange patterns (Council of Europe, 2001, p 126) The CEFR developed an illustrative scale for two qualitative aspects, fluency and propositional precision

Fluency is “the ability to articulate, to keep going and to cope when one lands in a dead end” Propositional precision refers to “the ability to formulate thoughts and propositions so as to make one‟s meaning clear” (Council of Europe, 2001, pp:

What is speaking?

According to Widdowson (1984), “speaking is an active productive skill” This means that when someone wants to deliver information, he or she needs to activate their background knowledge, choose appropriate words and use correct grammar and pronunciation to gain meaning This process requires someone‟s brain to use all knowledge he or she has about the language therefore it is not easy to be mastered

Bygate (1987) considers learner‟s speech as a process, speaking is a “real-time” action because the learner has to plan, process and produce the language simultaneously The speech process includes planning, selection and production of speech Planning is an interactive process which requires learner to have knowledge about interaction routines to plan the next step of the conversation Selection is the stage in which the leaner uses knowledge of language and grammar to decide how to express oneself In the production stage, the learner uses the knowledge about pronunciation and communication strategies to produce language (Bygate, 1987)

The CEFR has distinguished clearly between interaction (spontaneous) and production (prepared) of language Interaction activities are mainly spontaneous and are carried out throughout conversation and more or less informal discussion

Production activities are mainly prepared and rehearsed in advance (Council of Europe, 2001, p 178)

The categories for oral assessent is enormous and deciding which criteria to use for assessment is a relatively dificult work Assessor should determine the most appropriate criteria that could not only be used to assess students‟ speaking, but also be relevant to the objective of the course/ lesson, etc (Knight , 1992)

The CEFR classifies 12 qualitative categories relevant to oral assessment The CEFR has also developed illustrative scales for assessment and each scale describes the level of proficiency There are a number of categories relevant to assess speaking such as turn-taking strategies, co-operating strategies, asking for clarification, fluency, flexibility, coherence, thematic development, precision, sociolinguistic competence, general range, vocabulary range, grammatical accuracy, vocabulary control and phonological control (Council of Europe, 2001) However, it is impossible to assess all criteria simultaneously The assessers need to make choices for each assessment situation and select only several criteria that are relevant to the particular context Choosing no more than 4 or 5 criteria in each testing situation guarantees feasibility as well as reliability of the assessment ( Council of Europe, 2001, pp: 192-193).

Marking scheme

A marking scheme is sometimes referred to as a scoring rubric or a rating scale which is defined as an explicit set of criteria used for assessing a particular type of work or performance

As Davied, Brown, Elder, Hill, Lumly, McNamara (1999) defined it:

A rating scale is a scale for the description of language proficiency consisting of a series of constructed levels against which a language learner’s performance is judged Like a test, a proficiency scale provides an operational definition of a linguistic construct such as proficiency Typically such scales range from zero mastery through to an end-point representing the well-educated native speaker The levels or bands are commonly characterized in terms of what subjects can do with the language and their mastery of linguistic features (such as vocabulary, syntax, fluency and cohesion)…Scales are descriptions of groups of typically occurring behaviors, they are not in themselves test instruments and need to be used in conjunction with tests appropriate to the population and test purpose Raters or judges are normally trained in the use of proficiency scales so as to ensure the measure’s reliability (David et all, 1999, pp: 153-154)

From above definition, it can be seen that a rating scale includes both the fields to be assessed (construct) and the alignment between examiner‟s performance and the predetermined levels of behavior descriptions Thus, it is important to consider two above components when constructing a rating scale In addition, for different purposes the construction of scale can be different Alderson (1991) and Pollitt and Murray (1996) classify different purposes that rating scales could serve: user-oriented, constructor-oriented and assessor-oriented A user-oriented scale is

“designed to communicate information about typical of likely test taker behaviors at a given level” (Taylor, 2011, p 190) Constructor-oriented scale “guides test writer in their choice of tasks to include in a test” (Taylor, 2011, p 190) Assessor oriented scale “guides the rating process, focusing on the quality of performances expected”

(Taylor, 2011, p 190) Because one rating scale is rarely appropriate for all the purposes above, the purpose compatible with the scale must be prioritized to measure the sample language elicited from learner‟s performance in particular testing situation (Nakatsuhara, 2007)

In the present paper, the researcher focuses on constructing an assessor-oriented speaking marking scheme which teachers at Cam Giang high school can utilize to assess students‟ oral tests

1.3.2 Approach to construct a marking scheme

Marking scheme construction is recognized to be a complex process (Brindley,

1998, Fulcher, 2003, North, 2000) Traditionally, the design and construction of rating scales used a priori approach in which assessment criteria and rating scale descriptors are developed by “experts” using their own experience and intuitive judgment ( Fulcher, 2003) McNamara (1996) states that marking schemes were constructed based on the construction of the first scale for the Foreign Service Institute‟s Oral Proficiency Interview in the 1950s In 1990s, many authors supported empirically based approach involving analyzing samples of actual language performance to construct criteria and marking scheme descriptors (Fulcher, 1996; Milanovic, Saville, Pollitt and Cook, 1996; Shohamy, 1990; Upshur and Turner, 1995) Fulcher (2003) discusses two basic approaches to rating – scale development: intuitive approaches and empirical approaches Intuitive methods primarily rely on “expert judgment and the principled interpretation of experience”

(Council of Europe, 2001, p 208) Fulcher also introduced three common subcategories of an intuitive method as expert judgment, committee and experiential

The expert judgment and committee are alike in which the experts make decisions upon issues such as the number of levels and the wording of descriptors based on existing scales, curriculum, course material and other necessary sources

Experiential evolves on the basis of the expert judgment and committee by revising the scale after a further understanding on both the content of existing scale and sample performance (Fulcher, 2003) Empirical methods include data-based, data -driven scale development, empirically derived, binary – choice, boundary definition scales and scaling descriptors (Fulcher, 2003) More recently, together with scale development for the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), the mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods makes complementary contribution to rating scale development (Council of Europe, 2001) Quantitative methods rely on statistical analyses and careful interpretation of results while qualitative methods involve interpretation of information obtained

There are a number of approaches to marking scheme construction The best methods for marking scheme construction are said to combine all three approaches including intuitive, quantitative and qualitative approaches in “a complementary and cumulative process” (Council of Europe 2001, 207) Therefore, in constructing a marking scheme for assessing student s‟ oral test at Cam Giang High School, a combination of intuitive, qualitative and quantitative approaches was used

1.3.3 Steps to construct a marking scheme

According to Mertler (2001) building a marking scheme includes following seven steps:

Step 1: Re-examine the learning objectives to be addressed by the task This helps to match the teacher‟s scoring guide with objectives and actual instruction

Step 2: Identify specific observable attributes that the students demonstrate in their product, process, or performance

Step 3: Brainstorm characteristics that describe each attribute Identify ways to describe above average, average, and below average performance for each observable attribute identified in Step 2

Step 4a: For holistic rubrics, write thorough narrative descriptions for excellent work and poor work incorporating each attribute into the description Describe the highest and lowest levels of performance combining the descriptors for all attributes

Step 4b: For analytic rubrics, write thorough narrative descriptions for excellent work and poor work for each individual attribute Describe the highest and lowest levels of performance using the descriptors for each attribute separately

Step 5a: For holistic rubrics, complete the rubric by describing other levels on the continuum that ranges from excellent to poor work for the collective attributes Write descriptions for all inter mediate levels of performance

Step 5b: For analytic rubrics, complete the rubric by describing other levels on the continuum that ranges from excellent to poor work for each attribute Write descriptions for all inter mediate levels of performance for each attribute separately

Step 6: Collect samples of student work that exemplify each level These will help the examiners score in the future by serving as benchmarks

Step 7: Revise the rubric, as necessary Be prepared to reflect on the effectiveness of the rubric and revise it prior to its next implementation

(Mertler, 2001) Meanwhile, Nakutsuhara (2007) suggests developing a marking scheme according to four stages:

Stage 1: Reviewing existing speaking rating scales outside and inside Japan to collect marking categories and descriptors to be referenced in the later stage

Stage 2: Examining the course of the study (the guideline of secondary school education) to decide types and levels of marking categories for the target population

Stage 3: Drafting a rating scale based on the existing rating scales, while obtaining expert judgments from eight experienced upper-secondary school teachers

Stage 4: Piloting the scale with 42 Japanese upper- secondary students with two raters, to examine how well the resulting rating scale functions

(Nakutsuhara, 2007) Taylor (2001) proposes the process of constructing a marking scheme is took place in three phases as outline below:

Phase 1: Intuitive The marking scheme is constructed by the researcher The researcher carries out according to following steps:

+ Review the existing scale in the world and Vietnam, teaching materials, curriculum, objectives of the course and relevant source materials

+ Propose the criteria + Determine the number of scales +Develop the descriptors

+Discuss with other teachers and revise +Trail the scale

+ Stabilize the scale -> Version 1 Phase 2: Qualitative

External expert reviewing the existing scale + Rank the descriptors in order of difficulty + Trail the scale

+ Discuss and revise the scale + Stabilize the scale -> Version 2 Phase 3: Quantitative

Standard –setting phase + Trail the raters

+ Trail the scale + Analyze the scores + Stabilize the scale -> version 3 (Taylor, 2011, p 195)

In this research, the researcher follows a three - phase process suggested by Taylor

(2011) for some reasons Firstly, according to the CEFR (2001, p 207) the best methods for rating scale development are said to take advantage of the strengths of a range of intuitive, quantitative and qualitative approaches The best scale, the CEFR (2001, p 207) suggests, combine all three approaches in a “complementary and cumulative process” Secondly, the phases are logical and detailed They are clear for the researcher to follow In each phrase, steps are described specifically therefore it helps the researcher have an outline to construct a marking scheme

There are many divisions of individual types of marking scheme as there are many authors dealing with this issue According to “Rubric for assessment” of Northern

Illinois University there are several types of rubrics including holistic, analytical, general, and task –specific Timothy Farnsworth (2014) of CUNY Hunter College divided rubric into five types: holistic, analytic, task Fulfillment, performance decision trees and checklist However, according to Mertler (2001) and Taylor

METHODOLOGY

Setting of the study

The study was conducted at Cam Giang High School in Hai Duong The school has a history of 50 years of development since its foundation in 1966 Up to now, it has

30 classes of three grades 10, 11 and 12 The average number of students in each class is 40 students and the classroom is poorly equipped only with a blackboard and 24 small unmovable desks each of which is shared by 2 students There are seven English teachers All of them are enthusiastic and dedicated with work The school is considered one of the center schools of District At school, English is considered as one of the most important subjects in training the students and the students have four lessons of English a week

At the time this research was conducted, the students were in the second term of the academic year which covered the last 7 units of English text book 10

The current teaching material is „Tieng Anh 10‟ (seven-year program) published by Education Editor, Ministry of Education and Training The English textbook 10 (seven-year program) includes 16 teaching units and 6 review units called Test yourself Each teaching unit covers a topic and is structured into 5 sections: reading, speaking, listening, writing and language focus The speaking section includes activities, termed “tasks” related to topics of each unit The first and second activities provide language input and develop specific language functions such as expressing opinion, agreement and disagreement The rest involves short talks on a specific topic with or without prompts By the end of the course, students are able to ask and answer about the topics covered They can perform some basic language functions such as giving instructions, expressing opinions, asking for directions, asking and giving information, etc (General objectives to achieve in Grade 10 for speaking skills (MOET 2006: 19-25))

Participants

Participants in this study include students, seven teachers and two experts

Students: 150 tenth grade students at Cam Giang High School were selected to take part in the pilot testing of the marking scheme They were tested for their oral proficiency They were provided with comprehensive instructions about the topic they had to accomplish Their oral tests were tape-recorded for subsequence scoring

Their ages are from 16 to 17 They have passed an exam in English, Maths and Literature to enter Cam Giang High School All of them are Vietnamese native speakers and they started to learn English five years ago Their English knowledge was just at the elementary level and some even are at lower level Generally, students at this level can ask and answer about personal preferences, daily routines, common events, and other personal topics

Teachers: Seven teachers, including the researcher, who are currently teaching English at Cam Giang High School participate in this study Their teaching experience ranges from 4 years to 21 years All of them have good English competence and they are regularly involved in student instruction and assessment of performances All the seven teachers are female Here are all teachers‟ profiles

Teacher Age Year of university graduation

Teaching experience (No of year)

Experts: Two experts, who are working at the Center for Language Testing and Assessment, University of Languages and International Studies participated in the study They have experience in constructing tests and marking schemes for many years.

Description of the end-of- semester oral test

All the students at Cam Giang High School take an oral English test at the end of each semester The topics are constructed based on the same topics as the textbook

At the examination, the students are required to introduce themselves and then choose randomly one of the prepared topics Each topic is followed by some guiding questions which students can base on to outline their oral tests They have 5 minutes for preparation and then from 3 to 5 minutes to talk (See appendix for topic cards)

Research design

2.4.1 Rationale for using a multiple-method approach

This study is an attempt to construct a marking scheme for the end-of-semester oral test for tenth grade students at Cam Giang High School Therefore, it is best assisted by combining all three methods intuitive, qualitative and quantitative A distinction has been made between intuitively and empirically developed rating scales Intuitively methods primarily rely on expert judgment and the “principle interpretation of experience” Empirical methods, by contrast, are data-driven and based on actual learner performances Empirical scale development methods may be subdivided into

“quantitative” and “qualitative” based on the type of data they draw on

Fulcher (1996) and others (e.g Brindley 1998; Council of Europe 2001; Knoch 2009a; Turner and Upshur 2002) have argued that the intuitive design of many assessment scales, based exclusively on expert judgment, is compromised by the lack of empirical data on the features of learner speech or writing Recognition of the limitations of intuitively derived assessment scales has encouraged more empirically based methods of scale development However, it is important not to lose sight of the value of expert judgment and the wealth of knowledge which experts can bring to the development process The best methods for rating scale development are said to take advantage of the strengths of a range of intuitive, quantitative and qualitative approaches

According to Taylor (2011) the process of constructing a marking scheme is took place in three phases: intuitive phase, qualitative phase and quantitative phase In this study, the researcher follows these above phases However, some minor steps in each phase are modified to make it appropriate for the specific context of the researcher The intuitive phase is the first stage in which the researcher reviews the existing scale in the world and in Vietnam to produce a reference collection of marking criteria and descriptors Teaching materials, objectives of the course and relevant source materials are also reviewed to propose the first draft of the marking scheme After that the researcher obtains judgments from six experienced high school teachers In qualitative phase, the marking scheme is submitted to the experts to review and refine the marking scheme, which ensures the internal coherence of the marking scheme The judgments are collected from both the teachers and experts through interviews Quantitative phase analyzes the scores of students‟ oral tests to confirm the soundness of the marking schemes, assessment criteria and descriptors as a whole in live tests

Firstly, the researcher determines the evaluation criteria for her marking scheme

Based on communicative language ability framework of Cannale & Swain (1980) and Bachman and Palmer (1996), the CEFR, and rating categories collected from the Speaking section assessment criteria, it is plausible to choose four analytic marking categories for the purpose of this rating scale: 1 Grammar, 2) Vocabulary,

3) Pronunciation, 4) Fluency and coherence The choice of four marking categories is made because they are based on speaking section assessment criteria in the test for surveying language competence level A2 for students, which the present rating scale was also aiming to assess Moreover, these categories are frequently applied criteria for assessing speaking In addition, at the end of the course, the students can ask and answer about the topics covered and perform some basic language functions such as giving instructions, expressing opinions, asking for direction, asking and giving information, etc That is equivalent level A2 in the CEFR The CEFR has developed illustrative scales for these categories as follows:

Grammar refers to the accurate and appropriate use of a range of grammatical forms (Taylor, 2011) Students on proficiency level A2 use some simple structures correctly, but still systematically makes basic mistakes- for example tend to mix up tenses and forget to mark agreement, nevertheless, it is usually clear what he/she is trying to say” (Council of Europe, 2001, p 123)

Vocabulary refers to the candidate‟s ability to use a range of vocabulary to meet task requirement At level A2 student are expected to “have sufficient vocabulary to conduct routine, everyday transactions involving familiar situations and topics” and (Council of Europe, 2001, p 121)

Pronunciation refers to student‟s ability to produce individual sounds and to link words together, as well as using stress and intonation to communicate meaning (Thornbury, 2005, p 128) Pronunciation in the CEFR is included in an illustrative scale for phonological control and on proficiency level A2 Students are expected to

“pronounce clearly enough to be understood despite a noticeable foreign accent, but conversational partners will need to ask for repetition from time to time” (Council of Europe, 2001, p 126)

Fluency and coherence refer to student‟s ability to talk with normal levels of continuity, speech rate and effort and to link ideas and language together in coherence, connected speech and formal structure (MOET, 2014, p 190) A student on proficiency level A2

“can make himself/herself understood in short contributions, even though pauses, false starts and reformulation are very evident” and “can use the most frequently occurring connectors to link simple sentences in order to tell a story or describe something as a simple list of points” ( Council of Europe, 2001, pp: 134-138)

Secondly, in order to meet the objective of the course, it was decided that all categories should focus more on success in conveying a message and communication rather than language accuracy Therefore, the categories are not equally important Some categories account for higher percentage in comparison to the others According to the speaking section assessment criteria, Vocabulary and Fluency and Coherence are more important than Grammar and Pronunciation

Therefore, the marking categories were described in the following weighting:

Fluency and coherence marked out of 10 then multiplied by 3 Vocabulary marked out of 10 then multiplied by 3, Grammar marked out of 10 then multiplied by 2

Pronunciation marked out of 10 then multiplied by 2 (MOET, 2014, p.190) Thirdly, great care was taken to decide the number of levels, since the number of levels should be adequate to capture and discriminate different levels of speaking ability, but should not exceed the number of levels that busy school teachers are, with limited training, capable of consistently distinguishing (Nakatsuhara, 2007)

The researcher decided to have five levels in each marking categories including poor, bad, average, good and excellent with the score from 0 to 4 respectively The mark which students get will be calculated according to following formula:

The student‟ score = (Grammar x 2+ Vocabulary x 3+ Pronunciation x 2 + Fluency and Coherence x 3) / 20

The maximum score the student will get is 2 because the oral test in the final term test accounts for 20 % of the total score

Next, the marking scheme was drafted mainly with reference of CEFR The categories were drafted by stretching the CEFR level A1 and level A2 into 4 levels bad, average, good and excellent and level 0 was the lowest level describing no English competence The wording for each level was adapted from the CEFR according to the requirement of the task In order to explore the validity of the marking scheme, the draft marking scheme version was distributed to 6 teachers for judgments They were asked to answer the interview question which invited their comments on the marking scheme In general, the guiding interview questions focused on some aspects: criteria, levels of performance, descriptors and general look about marking scheme

After the completion of the first draft, the marking scheme continued to be given to two experts for review The two experts were also invited to give comments on the marking scheme through the interview The objective of this process is to ensure the internal coherence of the scale, wording them consistently and efficiently to make them usable for examiners during the process of giving assessment

Data collection instruments

2.5.1 The interview with the teachers and experts

In the present study, the interview was used The researcher used the interview questions designed and adapted from rubric checklist ELS 11.00 (NC State University) The yes-no questions were based on some specific categories regarding assessment that all interviewees were asked to comment on to assure the validity in the research Six English teachers at Cam Giang High School and two experts take part in this research The interview guide contains 12 questions, and all the questions regarding the marking scheme The questions in the interview were placed into four sections: Section1 (from Question 1 to Question 4) four questions of the first section are designed to ask for teachers‟ and experts‟ comments about the criteria of the marking scheme Section 2 (Question 5 and Question 6) find out the comments of the teachers and experts about levels of performance of the marking scheme Section 3 (three questions from Question 7 to Question 10) asked for teachers‟ and experts‟ opinion about descriptors Section 4 (three last questions from Question 11 to Question 13) investigated teachers‟ and experts‟ general ideas about the marking scheme and suggestions to make a better marking scheme (see appendix for interview questions) The teachers and experts were informed about the interview and were given interview questions sheet one week before the interview Each interview took about 8 to 10 minutes All the interviews were audio recorded by the teachers and experts themselves The teachers and experts are allowed to speak in Vietnamese so that the writer can elicit more information from the subjects The data from the interview was analyzed after gathering

150 students took the pilot-test with the same topic about music which is one of the topic students learnt in the second semester The students were informed of the topic by the time of this trail During the test they have 5 minutes for preparation and then from 3 to 5 minutes to talk The students‟ responses were audio-recorded After that, each student‟s audiotaped was scored following the marking scheme by three teachers and two experts

The content of the sample oral test is as follows:

Part 1: Introduction (1 to 2 minute) Introduce yourself including name, class, family, hobby and etc…

Part 2: Topic (2 to 3 minutes) What is your favourite kind of music?

Data analysis method

+ Who is your favorite musician/ singer?

+ When do you listen to it?

For the researcher, the purpose of the oral test is to collect data on the scores made by the teachers and experts when using the marking scheme The researcher wishes to find out whether the marking scheme could be successfully used by the teachers

In other words, the researcher would like to investigate correlations among the teachers and experts This success is measured through the quantitative of the scores made by teachers and experts

The chronological steps of data collection procedure are summarized as follows:

- Study the literature review on available marking schemes and write the first version

- Conduct interviews to the teachers and experts to gather their opinions of the marking scheme

- Write the second version of the marking scheme based on teachers‟ and experts‟ responses

- Conduct pilot-test with the marking scheme with the participation of 150 tenth-grade students, two teachers, the researcher and two experts

- Collect all data for analysis

- Analyze the data for findings

The data collected from the interview were possessed and analyzed as it was easier to find out the ideas and comments of the experts and teachers about the marking scheme

150 students‟ oral tests were marked by two experts, two teachers and the researcher following the new marking scheme The scores from the students‟ oral tests were computed and analyzed by the statistical software SPSS (Pearson‟s correlation) to investigate the correlations between the assessing made by each single examiner and by the rest of the examiners

Firstly, the data collected from the interview were then analyzed The data were processed and analyzed to find out the teachers‟ and experts‟ answers to many questions items

Secondly, the data were collected from the students‟ oral tests To see the relationship among teachers, between teachers and experts, among criteria, a Pearson correlation, which is a test to find out the correlation of ordinal variable, was employed Pearson‟s correlation is a statistical measure of the strength and direction of the linear relationship between pair data (which are score made by teachers, experts in this study) and it and it is denoted by r of which the value is such that -1 < r < +1 The closer r is to +1 or -1, the stronger the relationship While positive values indicate a relationship such that as values for one increase, values for the other also increase, negative values indicate a relationship such that as values for one increase, values for the other decrease Ratner (2008) provided guidelines for interpreting the strength of correlation: r = 0 indicates no linear relationship or no correlation, i.e there is no tendency for one variable to either increase or decrease when the other increases r values from more than 0 to less than +0.3 (from more than -0.3 to less than

0) indicate a weak correlation r values from 0.3 to less than 0.7 (from more than -0.7 to -0.3) indicate a moderate correlation r values from 0.7 to less than 1.0 (from more than -1.0 to -0.7) indicate a strong correlation r = +1 or -1 indicates a perfect linear relationship: as one variable increases (decreases) in its values, the other variable also increases (decreases) via an exact linear rule

Furthermore, Pearson correlation test in SPSS also provided p-value along the r value This p-value was to decide whether there is any evidence to suggest that correlation is present in the population It is believed that a small p (traditionally less than 0.05) gives strong evidence against the null hypothesis, and the null hypothesis could be rejected (Rumsey, 2003) In this thesis, a small p value would approve the likelihood of correlation among scorers and among criteria

Summary: To put it in a nutshell, this chapter gave detailed an explanation of the context of the study and the selection of the participants The writer also presented the reason for using a multi-method and specific procedure of conducting the marking scheme The data collection instruments included the semi-structured interview and oral tests, the procedure for collecting data and analyzing data also discussed The next chapter will present the result of the data analysis and discussion on major findings of the study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The finding from scores of students‟ oral tests

A Pearson test was run to find the correlation among scorers including teachers and

Table 1: Pearson Correlation on Grammar

Table 1 presents the correlations among scorers for grammar criteria Significant correlations were detected in every pair of teachers and experts Among these correlations, the strongest correlations are between teacher 1 and teacher 3, between teacher 2 and teacher 3, between teacher 1 and teacher 2 with r equal 811, 800 and

783 respectively (p=.000) The rest of significant correlations are all presented to be at moderate For example, r = 610 between teacher 3 and expert 2 (p=.000), r 556 between teacher 1 and expert 2 (p=.000), r = 526 between teacher 2 and expert

2 (p=.000), r= 525 between expert 1 and expert 2 (p=.000), r = 494 between teacher

1 and expert 1 (p=.000), r I3 between teacher 2 and expert 1(p=.000) Most obviously, the correlations among teachers are stronger than among experts and the correlations between teachers and expert 2 are higher than those between teachers and experts in Grammar criteria

Table 2: Pearson Correlation on vocabulary

Next, in term of vocabulary skills, all the correlations among examiners show a positive significance The stronger correlation are among teachers with r value equal 0.812, 801 and 796 between teacher 1 and teacher 2, between teacher 2 and teacher 3 and between teacher 1 and teacher 3 respectively The other correlations are moderated level with r ranging from 0.408 to 510

Table 3: Pearson Correlation on pronunciation

Table 3 shows the correlation among examiners for pronunciation The stronger correlations still appear in group of teachers with r ranging from 787 to 816 example, r = 333 (p= 000) between teacher 1 and expert 2, r= 347 (p=.000) between teacher 3 and expert 2, r =.351 (p=.000) between teacher 2 and expert 2, r=.394 (p=.000) between teacher 1 and expert 1 Although the correlations are weaker than those at remaining criteria, all the correlations reach positive moderate value with r > 0.3 (p=.000)

Table 4: Pearson Correlation on fluency and coherence

Table 4 presents the correlations among examiners for Fluency and Coherence

Among examiners show a significant positive correlation (r ranging from 506 to 806, p=.000) Interestingly, the stronger correlations are also among teachers

For example, r values are 806, 769 and 757 between teacher 1 and teacher 3, teacher

1 and teacher 2, and teacher 2 and teacher 3 respectively (p=.000) The correlations between two experts and between teachers and experts show moderate levels

Table 5: Pearson Correlation on Sum

As can be seen from table 5, the strongest correlations among teachers in each criterion lead to the strongest correlations among teachers for Sum All the significant correlations among teachers are strong correlation with r value reaching at 905, 892 and 892 (p=.000) between teachers 1 and teacher 1, between teacher 1 and teacher 3 and between teacher 2 and teacher 3 respectively It seems that teachers can be interchangeable and the teacher training at the beginning worked well The correlations between two experts and among teachers and experts also show a moderate significant with r ranging from 616 to 672 Although the weaker correlations between teachers and experts are in term of pronunciation skills, they don‟t affect the high correlations among scorers on sum

This study was conducted in order to construct a marking scheme for the-end-of semester oral test for tenth grade students The findings from the interview showed that the teacher and experts agreed with the marking scheme including four criteria:

Grammar, Vocabulary, Pronunciation, Fluency and Coherence with five levels from poor to excellent and scores from 0 to 4 respectively The descriptors were written based on the reference from the CEFR The findings from the students‟ oral scores showed a high correlation among scorers including teachers and experts However, there was stronger correlation among teachers‟ scores than those of experts‟ This was because three teachers altogether assessed the first ten students, the scores were compared and the reasons for scoring were discussed After that, they assessed the other 140 students individually Therefore, among teachers, there was similarity about giving marks to student‟s performance In each criterion, the scores given by them seemed to be the same or only a litter bit different (r > 0.7) The total marks showed strongest correlations among teachers with r reach 892 and 905 (p=.000)

It seems that teachers can be interchangeable Between two experts showed a lower correlation with r value ranging from 0.482 to 0.642 Two experts were independent during assessing process and they seemed to have little experience in assessing high school students‟ speaking They assessed students‟ performance based on the marking scheme and their experience with the CEFR Among correlations between experts and teachers, pronunciation had the least significant correlations (r values were from 0.333 to 0.446) The weaker correlation in pronunciation may be explained by the difference in background All the teachers live in the same geographical region with the students and they share the same local accent They usually interact with the students at school They are also familiar with the students‟ pronunciation and there is no difficulty for them to understand In contrast, two experts are highly professional They live and work in a major city and frequently make business trip to English speaking countries They have chances to interact with native speakers so their pronunciation is far better than that of the teachers

Therefore, they set a higher standard in assessing students‟ pronunciation In spite of the weaker relation in term of pronunciation skill, however, this didn‟t affect the high correlation on sum among scorers (with r > 0.6) This means that the marking scheme can be used for teachers at school

Summary of the study

The present study aimed at constructing a marking scheme for the end-of-semester English oral test for tenth-grade students In order to answer the research questions raised at the beginning of the study: “What are the marking criteria of the marking scheme for end-of-semester English oral test for 10 th grade students at Cam Giang High School? and “What are the descriptors for each criterion of the marking scheme for end-of-semester English oral test for 10 th grade students at Cam Giang High School?” the researcher reviewed the existing marking scheme, the course of the study and teaching material to write the first version of the marking scheme

After that, the researcher obtains judgments from six experienced high school teachers at Cam Giang High School and two experts in Center for Language Testing and Assessment The interview questions were employed to gain teachers‟ and experts‟ responses to the marking scheme The scores from student‟s oral tests were used to investigate the correlations among scorers Results of the research are important in the following ways

Firstly, having obtained opinions from the teachers and experts, it was agreed to have four marking categories including Grammar, Pronunciation, Vocabulary, Fluency and Coherence in the marking scheme The levels of performance were from poor to excellent with score from 0 to 4 respectively The descriptors were written with references from the CEFR with the top level of A2 After that they were rewritten based on teachers‟ and experts‟ responses to make it as comprehensible as possible for school teachers Some words which were pointed out as confusing and difficult to understand were rephrased The descriptors of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation criteria have been rewritten at level 3 and level 4 The pronunciation descriptor has included the word stress and intonation at level 2, 3 and 4 The notice for assessing students who use grammar correctly and pronounce clearly but his answer is wrong was added at the end of the marking coherence Although the descriptors were developed in a rather intuitive manner with judgment of the teachers and experts on the basis of the CEFR and MOET‟s marking scheme, the findings of the pilot trial demonstrated the high correlation among scorers including teachers and experts in assessing students‟ oral tests All the correlations showed a positive significance with r ranging from 333 to 905 (p=.000) There was stronger correlation among teachers‟ scores than those of experts‟ because the teachers had a pilot- assessing with the first ten students

Among correlations, the correlation on pronunciation between experts and teachers showed lower correlation than the rest In spite of the weaker correlation in term of pronunciation skill due to the difference in background between teachers and experts, however, it didn‟t affect the correlations on sum among scorers with r value ranging from 616 to 905 This showed the high reliability of the marking scheme

All the teachers and experts believed that the marking scheme can be applied in assessing student‟s speaking achievement Thus, the marking scheme presented here is fairly suitable for target population (See appendix 4B for the detail of the version

2 of the marking scheme) Secondly, it can be seen that the study is practically and theoretically helpful In practice, the study provided an effective assessment tool for teachers at Cam Giang High School in assessing students‟ oral tests It helps teachers provides students meaningful and specific feedback on area of strength and weakness on each aspect of performance Therefore, the students can know what is expected of them and how to achieve aim It also gives students opportunity to do self-assessment to reflect on the learning process Theoretically, it is expected that the study provides a marking scheme that serves as a good model to construct marking schemes and raise the concern of the other teachers at Cam Giang High School.

Pedagogical implications

Based on the research findings some pedagogical implications may be drawn out as follows:

The study results indicate that the marking scheme is fairly suitable for teachers to assess students‟ oral test It provides teachers a useful technique in assessing students‟ speaking achievement Marking scheme should be applied with three remaining skills

Due to the strangeness of marking scheme, some training sessions must be incorporated to make sure the teacher acquire enough comprehensive knowledge of the technique

The teachers should disseminate the assessment criteria to the learners from the beginning of the course so that the students can be active in their learning.

Limitation

The study has several major limitations Firstly, because of the limited time and knowledge of the researcher as well as the limited size of a minor thesis, the study only stops at constructing a marking scheme Secondly, the number and variety of the subjects involved in the pilot study were limited, which affects the external validity Therefore, so more or less the results might not be reliable enough for such a generalization Finally, the scoring of the pilot-test might be somehow subjective in spite of measures taken Meantime, the teachers are Cam Giang High School teachers and they share the same geographical region and the local accent with the students The results might not stay the same if the research is conducted at another setting with other teachers To some extent, these limitations reduce the objectivity of the scoring.

Suggestions for further studies

Anyway, constructing a marking scheme is a complex work Research on the construction of a marking scheme is still insufficient As mentioned above, the limitations of the study lie in the limited number of participants and limited time

Consequently, the writer strongly recommends a similar study which employs a larger number of participants as well as invests more time to construct and validate the marking scheme which helps to provide a better instrument to assess students‟ speaking achievement

Alderson, J C (1991) Bands and scores, in Alderson , J C and North, B J (Eds)

Language Testing in the 1990s: The communicative legacy, London: Modern

English Publications and The British Council, 71-86

Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) (1998) Multilingual Glossary of Language Testing Terms, Studies in language Testing 6, Cambridge:

Bachman, L.F and Palmer, A S (1996): Language Testing in Practice

Brindley, G (1998) Describing language development? Rating scale and SLA, in

Bachman, L F and Cohen, A D (Eds) Interfaces between Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing Research, Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 112-140 Oxford: Oxford University Press

Bộ giáo dục và đào tạo (2014) Hướng dẫn kiểm tra đánh giá môn tiếng anh.( Ban hành theo Quyết định số 5333/QĐ-BGDĐT ngày 29 tháng 9 năm 2014 của

Bộ trưởng Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo)

Bygate, M (1987): Speaking Oxford University Press, Oxford UK Canale, M and Swain, M (1980): „Theoretical Bases of Communicative

Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing‟ Applied Linguistics

Canale, M (1983a): „From Communicative Competence to Communicative

Language Pedagogy‟ In Richards, C and Schmidt, R W (eds) Language and Communication

Chomsky, N: (1965): Aspects of the theory of Syntax Cambridge, Mass.:MIT Press Common European Framework of References for Languages: Learning,

Teaching, Assessment (2001) http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=i&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&vedC wQFiAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coe.int%2Ft%2Fdg4%2Flinguistic%

FQjCNFgYWnsXGEL-Z3JUsc 1VNUipEJk4g&bvm=bv.52164340,d.bGE Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment Council of Europe, Modern

Languages Division, Strasbourg/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Davies, A, Brown, A, Elder, C, Hill, K, Lumley, T and McNamara, T (1999) Dictionary of Language Testing, Studies in Language Testing 23, Cambridge:

Fucher, G (2003) Testing Second Language Speaking, Harlow: Longman/ Peason Education Ltd

Fulcher, G & Davidson, F (2007): Language Testing and Assessment an advanced resource book Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York

Knight, B (1992) Assessing speaking skills: A Workshop for teacher development

ELT Journal, 46 (3), 294 – 302 doi: 10.1093/elt/46.3.294 Hughes, A (1989) Testing for language teachers Cambridge: Cambridge

Hymes, D (1972): „On Communicative Competence‟ in J.B Pride and J Holmes

(eds), Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books

Luoma, S (2004) Assessing speaking Cambridge University Press

McNamara, T F (1996) Measuring Second Language Performance, London:

Mertler, C A (2001) Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom Practical

Assessment, Research & Evaluation 7 (25) Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n%

Milanovic, M, Saville, N, Pollitt, A and Cook, A (1996) Developing rating scales for case: theoretical concerns and analysis, in Cumming, A and Brerwick, R (Eds) Validation in language Testing, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 15-38

Nakatsuhara, F (2007) Developing a rating scale to assess English speaking skills of Japaneses Upper-secondary students University of Essex

NC State University A Rubric Checklist Retrieved from https://www.ncsu.edu/midlink/rubrics/Rubric.Checklist.ELS.11.00.doc Niko, A J (2001) Educational assessment of students (3rd ed) Uper Saddle River,

North, B (2000) The Development of a Common Framework Scale of Descriptors of Language Proficiency Based on a Theory of Measurement, PhD Thesis,

Thames Valley University/ New York: Peter Lang

Northern Illinois University (2014) Rubrics for assessment Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/facdev/resources/guide/assessment/rubrics_for_assessment Politt, A and Murray, N (1996) What raters really pay attention to, in Milanovic, M and Saville, N (Eds) Performance Testing, Cognition, and Assessment,

Studies in Language Testing 3, Cambridge: UCLES/ Cambridge University Press, 74-91

Raza, W (2008) A rating scale to assess English speaking proficiency of university students in Pakistan Oxford University Press

Ratner, B (2008) The Correlation Coefficient: Definition Retrieved from http://www.dmstat1.com/res/TheCorrelationCoefficientDefined.html Rumsey, D (2003) Statistics for Dummies New Jersey: Wiley Publishing Inc

Rychtarick, S (2014) Dessining criteria to assess speaking skills University of

West Bohemia Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/7719276/Designing_Criteria_to_Assess_Speaking_Skills Shohamy, E (1990) Discourse analysis in language testing, Annual Review of

Taylor, L (2011) Examining Speaking Research and prctice in assessing second language speaking: Cambridge University Press

Thornbury S (2005): How to Teach Speaking Pearson Longman Timothy Farnsworth Designing Rubrics for Classroom Assessment CNNY Hunter

College Retrieved September 20, 2014 from https://www.google.com.vn/webhp?sourceid=chrome- instant&ion= 1

Upshur, J A and Turner, C E (1995) Constructing rating scales for second language tests, ELT Journal 49, 3-12

Wier, CJ (1990) Communicative Language Testing, New York: Prentice Hall

Widdowson, H G (1984) Teaching Language as Communication London: Oxford University

Can exploit a comprehensive and reliable mastery of a very wide range of language to formulate thoughts precisely, give emphasis, differentiate and eliminate ambiguity

No signs of having to restrict what he/she wants to say

C1 Can select an appropriate formulation from a broad range of language to express him/herself clearly, without having to restrict what he/she wants to say

Can express him/herself clearly and without much sign of having to restrict what he/she wants to say

Has a sufficient range of language to be able to give clear descriptions, express viewpoints and develop arguments without much conspicuous searching for words, using some complex sentence forms to do so

Has a sufficient range of language to describe unpredictable situations, explain the main points in an idea or problem with reasonable precision and express thoughts on abstract or cultural topics such as music and films

Has enough language to get by, with sufficient vocabulary to express him/herself with some hesitation and circumlocutions on topics such as family, hobbies and interests, work, travel, and current events, but lexical limitations cause repetition and even difficulty with formulation at times

Has a repertoire of basic language, which enables him/her to deal with everyday situations with predictable content, though he/she will generally have to compromise the message and search for words

Can produce brief everyday expressions in order to satisfy simple needs of a concrete type: personal details, daily routines, wants and needs, requests for information

Can use basic sentence patterns and communicate with memorised phrases, groups of a few words and formulae about themselves and other people, what they do, places, possessions etc

Has a limited repertoire of short memorised phrases covering predictable survival situations; frequent breakdowns and misunderstandings occur in non-routine situations

Has a good command of a very broad lexical repertoire including idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms; shows awareness of connotative levels of meaning

Has a good command of a broad lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readily overcome with circumlocutions; little obvious searching for expressions or avoidance strategies Good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms

Has a good range of vocabulary for matters connected to his field and most general topics? Can vary formulation to avoid frequent repetition, but lexical gaps can still cause hesitation and circumlocution

Has a sufficient vocabulary to express him/herself with some circumlocutions on most topics pertinent to his everyday life such as family, hobbies and interests, work, travel, and current events

Has sufficient vocabulary to conduct routine, everyday transactions involving familiar situations and topics

Has a sufficient vocabulary for the expression of basic communicative needs

Has a sufficient vocabulary for coping with simple survival needs

A1 Has a basic vocabulary repertoire of isolated words and phrases related to particular concrete situations

Maintains consistent grammatical control of complex language, even while attention is otherwise engaged (e.g in forward planning, in monitoring others‟ reactions)

C1 Consistently maintains a high degree of grammatical accuracy; errors are rare and difficult to spot

Good grammatical control Occasional "slips" or non-systematic errors and minor flaws in sentence structure may still occur, but they are rare and can often be corrected in retrospect

Shows a relatively high degree of grammatical control Does not make mistakes which lead to misunderstanding

Communicates with reasonable accuracy in familiar contexts; generally good control though with noticeable mother tongue influence Errors occur, but it is clear what he/she is trying to express

Uses reasonably accurately a repertoire of frequently used "routines" and patterns associated with more predictable situations

Uses some simple structures correctly, but still systematically makes basic mistakes - for example tends to mix up tenses and forget to mark agreement; nevertheless, it is usually clear what he/she is trying to say

A1 Shows only limited control of a few simple grammatical structures and sentence patterns in a learnt repertoire

VOCABULARY CONTROL C2 Consistently correct and appropriate use of vocabulary

C1 Occasional minor slips, but no significant vocabulary errors

B2 Lexical accuracy is generally high, though some confusion and incorrect word choice does occur without hindering communication

Shows good control of elementary vocabulary but major errors still occur when expressing more complex thoughts or handling unfamiliar topics and situations

A2 Can control a narrow repertoire dealing with concrete everyday needs

PHONOLOGICAL CONTROL C2 No descriptor available

C1 Can vary intonation and place sentence stress correctly in order to express finer shades of meaning

B2 Has a clear, natural, pronunciation and intonation

B1 Pronunciation is clearly intelligible even if a foreign accent is sometimes evident and occasional mispronunciations occur

Pronunciation is generally clear enough to be understood despite a noticeable foreign accent, but conversational partners will need to ask for repetition from time to time

Pronunciation of a very limited repertoire of learnt words and phrases can be understood with some effort by native speakers used to dealing with speakers of his/her language group

ORTHOGRAPHIC CONTROL C2 Writing is orthographically free of error

C1 Layout, paragraphing and punctuation are consistent and helpful

Spelling is accurate, apart from occasional slips of the pen

Can produce clearly intelligible continuous writing, which follows standard layout and paragraphing conventions

Spelling and punctuation are reasonably accurate but may show signs of mother tongue influence

Can produce continuous writing, which is generally intelligible throughout

Spelling, punctuation and layout are accurate enough to be followed most of the time

Can copy short sentences on everyday subjects - e.g directions how to get somewhere Can write with reasonable phonetic accuracy (but not necessarily fully standard spelling) short words that are in his/her oral vocabulary

Can copy familiar words and short phrases e.g simple signs or instructions, names of everyday objects, names of shops and set phrases used regularly

Can spell his/her address, nationality and other personal details

Note: Scaling of descriptors is the intention of the authors of the scales on which these descriptors are based

Has a good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms with awareness of connotative levels of meaning

Appreciates fully the sociolinguistic and sociocultural implications of language used by native speakers and can react accordingly

Can mediate effectively between speakers of the target language and that of his/her community of origin taking account of sociocultural and sociolinguistic differences

Can recognise a wide range of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms, appreciating register shifts; may, however, need to confirm occasional details, especially if the accent is unfamiliar

Can follow films employing a considerable degree of slang and idiomatic usage

Can use language flexibly and effectively for social purposes, including emotional, allusive and joking usage

Can express him- or herself confidently, clearly and politely in a formal or informal register, appropriate to the situation and person(s) concerned

Can with some effort keep up with and contribute to group discussions even when speech is fast and colloquial

Can sustain relationships with native speakers without unintentionally amusing or irritating them or requiring them to behave other than they would with a native speaker

Can express him or herself appropriately in situations and avoid crass errors of formulation

Can perform and respond to a wide range of language functions, using their most common exponents in a neutral register

Is aware of the salient politeness conventions and acts appropriately

Is aware of, and looks out for signs of, the most significant differences between the customs, usages, attitudes, values and beliefs prevalent in the community concerned and those of his or her own

Can perform and respond to basic language functions, such as information exchange and requests and express opinions and attitudes in a simple way

Can socialise simply but effectively using the simplest common expressions and following basic routines

Can handle very short social exchanges, using everyday polite forms of greeting and address Can make and respond to invitations, invitations, apologies etc

A1 Can establish basic social contact by using the simplest everyday polite forms of: greetings and farewells; introductions; saying please, thank you, sorry etc

Shows great flexibility reformulating ideas in differing linguistic forms to give emphasis, to differentiate according to the situation, interlocutor etc and to eliminate ambiguity

Can adjust what he/she says and the means of expressing it to the situation and the recipient and adopt a level of formality appropriate to the circumstances

Can adjust to the changes of direction, style and emphasis normally found in conversation

Can vary formulation of what he/she wants to say

Can adapt his expression to deal with less routine, even difficult, situations

Can exploit a wide range of simple language flexibly to express much of what he/she wants

Can adapt well-rehearsed memorised simple phrases to particular circumstances through limited lexical substitution

Can expand learned phrases through simple recombinations of their elements

TAKING THE FLOOR (TURNTAKING) C2 No descriptor available

Can select a suitable phrase from a readily available range of discourse functions to preface his remarks appropriately in order to get the floor, or to gain time and keep the floor whilst thinking

Can intervene appropriately in discussion, exploiting appropriate language to do so

Can initiate, maintain and end discourse appropriately with effective turntaking

Can initiate discourse, take his turn when appropriate and end conversation when he/she needs to, though he/she may not always do this elegantly

Can use stock phrases (e.g "That's a difficult question to answer") to gain time and keep the turn whilst formulating what to say

Can intervene in a discussion on a familiar topic, using a suitable phrase to get the floor

Can initiate, maintain and close simple face-to-face conversation on topics that are familiar or of personal interest

Can use simple techniques to start, maintain, or end a short conversation

Can initiate, maintain and close simple, face-to-face conversation

THEMATIC DEVELOPMENT C2 No descriptor available

C1 Can give elaborate descriptions and narratives, integrating sub themes, developing particular points and rounding off with an appropriate conclusion

B2 Can develop a clear description or narrative, expanding and supporting his/her main points with relevant supporting detail and examples

B1 Can reasonably fluently relate a straightforward narrative or description as a linear sequence of points

A2 Can tell a story or describe something in a simple list of points

COHERENCE C2 Can create coherent and cohesive text making full and appropriate use of a variety of organisational patterns and a wide range of cohesive devices

C1 Can produce clear, smoothly flowing, well-structured speech, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices

B2 Can use a variety of linking words efficiently to mark clearly the relationships between ideas

Can use a limited number of cohesive devices to link his/her utterances into clear, coherent discourse, though there may be some "jumpiness" in a long contribution

B1 Can link a series of shorter, discrete simple elements into a connected, linear sequence of points

A2 Can use the most frequently occurring connectors to link simple sentences in order to tell a story or describe something as a simple list of points

Can link groups of words with simple connectors like "and, "but" and

A1 Can link words or groups of words with very basic linear connectors like 'and' or 'then'

PROPOSITIONAL PRECISION C2 Can convey finer shades of meaning precisely by using, with reasonable accuracy, a wide range of qualifying devices (e.g adverbs expressing degree, clauses expressing limitations)

Can give emphasis, differentiate and eliminate ambiguity

C1 Can qualify opinions and statements precisely in relation to degrees of, for example, certainty/ uncertainty, belief/doubt, likelihood etc

B2 Can pass on detailed information reliably B1 Can explain the main points in an idea or problem with reasonable precision

Can convey simple, straightforward information of immediate relevance, getting across which point he/she feels is most important

Can express the main point he/she wants to make comprehensibly

A2 Can communicate what he/she wants to say in a simple and direct exchange of limited information on familiar and routine matters, but in other situations he/she generally has to compromise the message

SPOKEN FLUENCY C2 Can express him/herself at length with a natural, effortless, unhesitating flow

Pauses only to reflect on precisely the right words to express his/her thoughts or to find an appropriate example or explanation

C1 Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously, almost effortlessly Only a conceptually difficult subject can hinder a natural, smooth flow of language

B2 Can communicate spontaneously, often showing remarkable fluency and ease of expression in even longer complex stretches of speech

Can produce stretches of language with a fairly even tempo; although he/she can be hesitant as he/she searches for patterns and expressions, there are few noticeably long pauses

Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without imposing strain on either party

B1 Can express him/herself with relative ease Despite some problems with formulation resulting in pauses and "cul-de-sacs", he/she is able to keep going effectively without help

Can keep going comprehensibly, even though pausing for grammatical and lexical planning and repair is very evident, especially in longer stretches of free production

A2 Can make him/herself understood in short contributions, even though pauses, false starts and reformulation are very evident

Can construct phrases on familiar topics with sufficient ease to handle short exchanges, despite very noticeable hesitation and false starts

A1 Can manage very short, isolated, mainly pre-packaged utterances, with much pausing to search for expressions, to articulate less familiar words, and to repair communication

APPENDIX 2 SPEAKING SECTION ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The total score for this part is 10 points

These refer to Ss‟ ability to talk with normal levels of continuity, speech rate and effort and to link ideas and language together in coherent, connected speech, and formal structure

This refers to the range of vocabulary SS can use and how clearly meaning and attitudes can be expressed

3 Grammatical range and accuracy (2pt):

This refers to the range of structures available to the Ss and how accurately and appropriately SS can use them

Making as few grammatical mistakes as possible

Being able to use English pronunciation features like stress and intonation naturally

Not causing the examiner any problem in understanding what the student is saying

APPENDIX 3 Topics for the-of-semester oral test of the tenth-grade students

- Part 1: INTRODUCTION: (maximum: 1 minute) : yourself , your family, your hobbies…

- Part 2: Talk about a topic Topic 1: Talk about your daily activities:

- What time do you often get up?

- What do you do in the morning/ afternoon/ evening/ free time?

Topic 2: Talk about your school, class & your study:

- Which school do you attend?

- Which class are you in?

- How many lesson do you have a day?

- Which is your favourite subject?

Topic 3: Talk about the person you like most?

- Name, date of birth, job, interests, …?

- The reason why you like him/her?

Topic 4: Talk about the uses of computers:

- for office work and studying

Topic 5: Talk about your lower secondary school:

- Which school did you attend?

- How many subjects did you study then?

- Which subject did you like best?

- What about the homework /exams?

- What did you like at school? Why?

Topic 6: Talk about an excursion you have had recently:

- When/ Where/ With whom/ How did you go?

- What did you do during the excursion?

- What did you feel about the trip?

Topic 7: Talk about your favourite programme:

- Which channel and When is it shown?

- Why do you like it?

Topic 8: Talk about different types of the mass media:

- What are different types of the mass media?

- What feature do they have in common?

- What are their distinctive features?

Topic 9: Talk about some actions that should be taken to protect our oceans

Topic 10: Talk about a national park you would like to visit most

- reasons for visiting this place

- best time to visit it

Topic 11: Talk about your favourite kind of music

- reason(s) for listening to this kind of music

- favourite song/ piece of music

Topic 12: Talk about a film you have seen

- what the film is about

- place where the film is made

- what you know about the main character(s)

- your opinion of the film

Topic 13: Talk about a World Cup you are interested in

- Which World Cup is it?

- Where and when was it held?

- Which teams played in the final match?

- Which team became the champion/ runner- up?

- What was the score of the match?

Topic 14: Talk about a football player you like best

- What is his/ her name?

- Where and when was he/she born?

- What is he/she famous for?

- What is his/ her achievements?

Topic 15: Talk about a famous historical place in Vietnam

APPENDIX 4A VERSION 1 OF THE MARKING SCHEME

3 Grammar Student is not present or he/ she doesn‟t answer any questions

- Only use few basic phrases in a learnt repertoire

Show only limited control of simple grammatical structures and sentence patterns in a learnt repertoire

-Use a few simple structures correctly, but still systematically make basic mistakes

Use some simple structures correctly, but still systematically make basic mistakes; however, he/she can manage to make himself/ herself understood

4 Vocabulary Student is not present or he/ she doesn‟t answer any questions

Show limited control of a few basic vocabulary repertoires of isolated words

Have a basic vocabulary repertoire of isolated words and phrases related to

Have a sufficient vocabulary for the expression of basic communicative needs

Have a sufficient vocabulary to conduct routine, everyday transactions and phrases related to particular concrete topics particular concrete situation involving familiar situations and topics

5 Pronunciation Student is not present or he/ she doesn‟t answer any questions

-Can articulate a very limited repertoire of learnt words and phrases with limited accuracy

-Can articulate some repertoire of learnt words and phrases with some accuracy

-Can articulate simple words and phrases but conversational partners will need to ask for repetition from time to time

- Pronunciation is mostly intelligible and has acquired a quite clear pronunciation but conversational partners will need to ask for repetition from time to time

Student is not present or he/ she doesn‟t answer any questions

Can only manage very limited of short, isolated words and phrases, mainly

Can manage short, isolated words and phrases, mainly learnt utterance,

Can construct shorts words and phrases on familiar topics with sufficient ease to

Can make him/herself understood in short contribution, even though pauses, false learnt utterance with much pausing

-Can’t link words or groups of words with very basic connectors like “and” or

“then” with frequent pausing to search for expressions, to articulate less familiar words and to repair communication

-Link words or groups of words with basic connectors like

“and” or “then” handle short exchanges, despite very noticeable hesitation, frequent false starts

-Link groups of words with simple connectors like

“and”, “but”” and “because” starts and reformulation are very obvious

-Can use the most frequently occurring connectors to link simple sentences in order to tell a story or describe something as a simple list of points

APPENDIX 4B VERSION 2 OF THE MARKING SCHEME

1 Grammar -Student is not present or he/she doesn‟t answer any questions

-Can’t use completed sentences; only use a few words and simple phases in a learnt repertoire

-Attempt to use a few learnt simple grammatical structures and sentence patterns but frequently makes mistakes

-Use correctly a few learnt simple structures, but sometimes makes mistakes

Nevertheless, this doesn’t affect the intelligibility

-Use correctly a large number of learnt simple structures

Student may sometimes make mistakes but the mistakes are not systematic

2 Vocabulary -Student is not present or he/she doesn‟t answer any questions

-Only produces a few isolated words and phrases in a

-Use learnt simple words and phrases of certain topics and the

-Use learnt simple vocabulary to convey personal information and