Aims and objectives of the study
This study focuses on developing a marking scheme for end-of-semester English oral tests specifically designed for 10th grade students at Cam Giang High School in Hai Duong The goal is to create an effective assessment tool to evaluate students' English speaking competence.
This study aims to achieve its objectives by examining the marking criteria and descriptors of the target marking scheme, as well as assessing 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
This research focuses on developing a marking scheme for end-of-semester English oral tests specifically designed for 10th grade students at Cam Giang High School in Hai Duong.
This study concentrates exclusively on oral testing, specifically the development of a marking scheme designed to establish clear criteria and descriptors for assessing students' speaking abilities By implementing this marking scheme, teachers at Cam Giang High School will be able to evaluate students' oral tests more accurately and objectively Additionally, the research is limited to tenth-grade students at Cam Giang High School.
Significance of the study
The study holds significant importance for both 10th-grade students and teachers at Cam Giang High School, as it contributes to enhancing speaking skills in education For educators, it offers a valuable assessment tool that promotes objectivity and fairness in grading The marking scheme clearly outlines the criteria, helping students understand expectations and pathways to success Ultimately, the study aims to empower students with opportunities for self-assessment, encouraging reflection on their learning journey.
Method of the study
This study aims to develop a marking scheme for end-of-semester English oral tests for 10th grade students at Cam Giang High School in Hai Duong, utilizing a blend of intuitive, qualitative, and quantitative methods The researcher has reviewed various sources, including books, newspapers, and online materials Findings are derived from interviews with experts and teachers, as well as students' scores on the oral tests Additionally, ongoing discussions with the supervisor play a crucial role in the research process.
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) outlines the research methodology, detailing the study's context, subject information, data collection instruments, procedures, and analysis methods.
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, introduced by Hymes in 1972, expands the concept of language beyond just grammatical competence, which Chomsky emphasized in 1965 Hymes argued that understanding language requires analyzing grammar, speech acts, and discourse in the context of the speech community Luoma (2004) further highlights that communicative competence centers on the language user's ability to communicate effectively, influencing the selection of authentic learning materials and communicative tasks in language education.
Canale and Swain (1980) introduced a foundational theoretical model of communicative competence, differentiating between communicative competence—encompassing grammatical, sociolinguistic, and strategic knowledge—and communicative performance, which refers to the execution of actual communication In a subsequent revision in 1983, Canale refined this model by substituting the term “actual communication” to enhance clarity.
“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) introduced a model of communicative language ability, emphasizing the interplay between context and language use (Fulcher and Davidson, 2007) This model defines "language ability" as comprising both language knowledge and strategic competence Language knowledge encompasses organizational knowledge, including grammatical and textual aspects, as well as pragmatic knowledge, which involves illocutionary and sociolinguistic competence Strategic competence refers to the ability to evaluate the feasibility of a situation and plan subsequent actions (Luoma, 2004) The authors asserted that their model serves as a useful checklist for creating effective language tests.
1.1.1 Communicative competence in the CEFR
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) is a comprehensive guideline for language learning, teaching, and assessment, emphasizing the nature of language use and the learner's role (Council of Europe, 2001) It establishes clear proficiency levels to measure learner progress and sets criteria for evaluating four essential English skills: reading, speaking, listening, and writing Among these, speaking is particularly crucial, as it enables learners to communicate effectively and develop various competencies The CEFR categorizes language proficiency into three levels: Basic User (A1, A2), Independent User (B1, B2), and Proficient User (C1, C2) (Council of Europe, 2001).
Communicative competence encompasses three key components: linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, and pragmatic competence (Council of Europe, 2001, p 108) Similarly, Canale and Swain's (1980) model identifies grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence Despite slight differences in terminology between the CEFR and Canale and Swain, both frameworks utilize comparable categories to define competences This paper will focus on the CEFR categories that are particularly relevant for assessing speaking skills.
Linguistic competence forms the foundation of communicative competence, encompassing several key components These components include lexical competence, which pertains to vocabulary; grammatical competence, related to sentence structure; semantic competence, focused on meaning; phonological competence, concerning sound systems; and orthoepic competence, which deals with pronunciation.
Lexical competence refers to the knowledge and ability to use a language's vocabulary, encompassing both lexical and grammatical elements (Council of Europe, 2001, p.110) It includes fixed expressions and individual word forms that enrich language across various levels of meaning The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) provides an illustrative scale detailing the range of vocabulary knowledge and the ability to manage that knowledge, outlining these competencies effectively (Council of Europe, 2001, p.112).
Grammatical competence refers to the knowledge and ability to effectively utilize the grammatical resources of a language, enabling individuals to understand and convey meaning through well-formed phrases and sentences.
2001) To measure grammatical competence, the CEFR has developed an illustrative scale demonstrating levels of grammatical accuracy (Council of Europe,
Grammatical competence encompasses both morphology and syntax, essential for learners to understand Morphology focuses on the structure and modification of word forms, while syntax pertains to arranging words into coherent 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 encompasses an understanding of sound units, word stress, sentence stress, rhyme, and intonation, while orthoepic competence includes knowledge of spelling conventions, dictionary usage, the impact of written forms on phrasing and intonation, and the ability to resolve ambiguity in different contexts.
Sociolinguistic competence refers to the knowledge and skills necessary for navigating the social aspects of language use (Council of Europe, 2001) This competence encompasses various elements such as linguistic markers of social relations, politeness conventions, folk wisdom expressions, differences in register, and variations in dialect and accent (Council of Europe, 2001) According to Canale and Swain, sociolinguistic competence is defined as the ability to communicate appropriately across diverse contexts, incorporating both verbal and non-verbal communication (Canale and Swain, 1980).
Linguistic markers of social relations differ across languages, encompassing elements such as greeting choices, address forms, conversation turn-taking conventions, and the selection of expletives.
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)
Folk wisdom is often encapsulated in fixed expressions like proverbs and idioms, which reflect daily life and societal values These expressions frequently appear in newspaper headlines, graffiti, and T-shirt slogans, showcasing their relevance in contemporary culture (Council of Europe, 2001, p 120).
Register differences denote the systematic variations in language use across different contexts, highlighting distinctions in levels of formality These levels include frozen, formal, neutral, informal, familiar, and intimate registers, as outlined by the Council of Europe (2001).
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,
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) outlines key aspects of discourse competence, including flexibility in various contexts, turn-taking, thematic development, and coherence (Council of Europe, 2001) It emphasizes functional competence, which focuses on the effective use of spoken and written communication for specific purposes, along with an understanding of social interaction patterns (Council of Europe, 2001) The CEFR also introduces an illustrative scale highlighting fluency—the ability to articulate thoughts and navigate conversational challenges—and propositional precision, which is the skill of clearly formulating ideas and propositions (Council of Europe, 2001).
What is speaking?
Speaking is an active productive skill that requires individuals to activate their background knowledge, select appropriate vocabulary, and utilize correct grammar and pronunciation to convey meaning effectively (Widdowson, 1984) This complex process involves real-time planning, processing, and producing language, as learners must manage their speech dynamically (Bygate, 1987) The speech process consists of three stages: planning, selection, and production Planning involves understanding interaction routines to navigate conversations, while selection requires knowledge of language and grammar for effective expression Finally, production relies on pronunciation and communication strategies (Bygate, 1987) The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) distinguishes between spontaneous interaction and prepared production, with interaction occurring in informal discussions and production involving rehearsed activities (Council of Europe, 2001).
Choosing the right criteria for oral assessment can be challenging due to the vast array of categories available Assessors must identify the most suitable criteria that effectively evaluate students' speaking abilities while aligning with the objectives of the course or lesson (Knight, 1992).
The CEFR outlines 12 qualitative categories essential for oral assessment, accompanied by illustrative scales that detail proficiency levels Key categories for evaluating speaking include turn-taking strategies, fluency, coherence, and sociolinguistic competence, among others However, assessing all criteria at once is impractical; therefore, assessors must selectively choose 4 to 5 relevant criteria for each context to ensure both feasibility and reliability in the assessment process.
Marking scheme
A marking scheme, also known as a scoring rubric or rating scale, is a clearly defined set of criteria utilized for evaluating specific types of work or performance.
As Davied, Brown, Elder, Hill, Lumly, McNamara (1999) defined it:
A rating scale for language proficiency is a structured framework used to evaluate a learner's performance across various levels, ranging from no mastery to that of a well-educated native speaker These scales operationally define linguistic proficiency by detailing what learners can accomplish with the language, including their command of vocabulary, syntax, fluency, and cohesion While proficiency scales describe typical behaviors, they are not standalone testing instruments and should be utilized alongside appropriate assessments tailored to specific populations and purposes To ensure reliability, raters are typically trained in the application of these proficiency scales (David et al., 1999, pp: 153-154).
A rating scale encompasses the areas to be evaluated (construct) and the correspondence between the examiner's performance and established behavioral descriptions Therefore, it's crucial to consider these two components when designing a rating scale Additionally, the construction of the scale may vary based on its intended purpose According to Alderson (1991) and Pollitt and Murray (1996), rating scales can be categorized into three types: user-oriented, constructor-oriented, and assessor-oriented A user-oriented scale focuses on the needs and perspectives of the individual being assessed.
According to Taylor (2011), the design of assessment scales is crucial for understanding typical test taker behaviors at various levels A constructor-oriented scale aids test writers in selecting appropriate tasks for inclusion in assessments, while an assessor-oriented scale focuses on the expected quality of performances during the rating process Since a single rating scale often cannot fulfill all these functions, it is essential to prioritize the purpose that aligns with the scale to effectively measure the language produced by learners in specific testing contexts (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,
The design and construction of rating scales have traditionally relied on an a priori approach, where experts develop assessment criteria based on their experience and intuition (Fulcher, 2003) McNamara (1996) notes that the first marking schemes were created for the Foreign Service Institute's Oral Proficiency Interview in the 1950s In the 1990s, a shift towards an empirically based approach emerged, emphasizing the analysis of actual language performance to inform criteria and descriptors (Fulcher, 1996; Milanovic et al., 1996; Shohamy, 1990; Upshur and Turner, 1995) Fulcher (2003) identifies two main approaches to rating scale development: intuitive and empirical Intuitive methods depend on expert judgment, with subcategories including expert judgment, committee decisions, and experiential revisions In contrast, empirical methods involve data-driven development and incorporate statistical analyses alongside qualitative interpretations Recent advancements in rating scale development, particularly for the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), highlight the integration of both qualitative and quantitative methods for a more comprehensive approach (Council of Europe, 2001).
Effective marking scheme construction involves a blend of intuitive, quantitative, and qualitative approaches, creating a complementary and cumulative process (Council of Europe 2001, 207) In developing a marking scheme for assessing students' oral tests at Cam Giang High School, a combination of these three methods was employed to ensure a comprehensive evaluation.
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
In Step 4a of creating holistic rubrics, it is essential to craft detailed narrative descriptions that encompass both excellent and poor work by integrating each attribute into the evaluation These descriptions should clearly articulate the highest and lowest levels of performance, effectively combining the descriptors for all attributes to provide a comprehensive understanding of the criteria.
In Step 4b, when creating analytic rubrics, it is essential to provide detailed narrative descriptions for both excellent and poor performance for each attribute This involves clearly outlining the highest and lowest levels of achievement, using specific descriptors tailored to each individual attribute to ensure a comprehensive understanding of performance expectations.
To develop holistic rubrics, it is essential to articulate descriptions for various performance levels along the continuum from excellent to poor This includes detailing the attributes of intermediate performance levels, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of each stage in the evaluation process.
In Step 5b of developing analytic rubrics, it is essential to outline a continuum of performance levels for each attribute, ranging from excellent to poor work This involves providing detailed descriptions for all intermediate performance levels, ensuring that each attribute is assessed separately to facilitate clear and comprehensive evaluation.
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
The CEFR (2001, p 207) emphasizes that effective rating scale development should leverage a combination of intuitive, quantitative, and qualitative methods, creating a complementary and cumulative process Additionally, the outlined phases are logical and detailed, providing clear guidance for researchers Each phase includes specific steps, enabling researchers to effectively 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
At Illinois University, various types of rubrics are utilized, including holistic, analytical, general, and task-specific rubrics Timothy Farnsworth (2014) from CUNY Hunter College categorized rubrics into five distinct types: holistic, analytic, task fulfillment, performance decision trees, and checklists Additionally, Mertler (2001) and Taylor have contributed to the understanding and classification of these assessment tools.
In 2011, assessment criteria for evaluating L2 spoken language performance are primarily divided into two categories: holistic and analytic This study aims to explore the advantages and disadvantages associated with each type of assessment.
A holistic marking scheme involves an impressionistic assessment of students' oral test quality using a unified marking system This approach, widely utilized in evaluating L2 speaking, emphasizes the overall performance rather than focusing on individual components.
General impression marking emphasizes overall properties over specific performance features, making it a quicker alternative to analytic marking schemes However, holistic marking lacks detailed feedback on individual criteria, limiting its effectiveness in planning instruction and analyzing students' strengths and weaknesses.
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
The school serves 30 classes across grades 10, 11, and 12, with an average of 40 students per class However, the classrooms are inadequately equipped, featuring only a blackboard and 24 small, fixed desks shared by two students each There are seven enthusiastic and dedicated English teachers who prioritize English as a crucial subject, offering students four lessons per week This school is recognized as a central institution within the district, emphasizing the importance of English in student training.
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 English textbook "Tieng Anh 10" for the seven-year program, published by the Ministry of Education and Training, consists of 16 teaching units and 6 review units known as "Test yourself." Each unit is organized into five sections: reading, speaking, listening, writing, and language focus The speaking section features activities, or "tasks," that enhance language skills related to the unit's topics, focusing on functions such as expressing opinions, agreement, and disagreement By the end of the course, students will be equipped to engage in basic conversations, including giving instructions, asking for directions, and sharing information.
Participants
Participants in this study include students, seven teachers and two experts
A total of 150 tenth-grade students from Cam Giang High School participated in a pilot test to evaluate their oral proficiency in English Aged between 16 and 17, these students had previously passed exams in English, Mathematics, and Literature to enroll in the school All participants are native Vietnamese speakers who began learning English five years ago, with most possessing only elementary-level skills, and some at even lower levels Typically, students at this proficiency can engage in basic conversations about personal preferences, daily routines, and common events The oral tests were recorded for subsequent evaluation, and comprehensive instructions were provided regarding the topics to be discussed.
Seven female English teachers, including the researcher, from Cam Giang High School participated in this study, showcasing teaching experience between 4 to 21 years Each teacher possesses strong English proficiency and actively engages in student instruction and performance assessment.
Teacher Age Year of university graduation
Teaching experience (No of year)
Two experts from the Center for Language Testing and Assessment at the University of Languages and International Studies contributed to the study, bringing years of experience in test construction and marking schemes.
Description of the end-of- semester oral test
At Cam Giang High School, all students participate in an oral English test at the conclusion of each semester These tests are designed around the same topics found in the curriculum, ensuring alignment with the textbook content.
During the examination, students must introduce themselves and randomly select one of the designated topics Each topic includes guiding questions to help structure their oral presentations They are given 5 minutes for preparation and will then speak for 3 to 5 minutes (Refer to the appendix for topic cards.)
Research design
2.4.1 Rationale for using a multiple-method approach
This study aims to develop a marking scheme for the end-of-semester oral test for tenth-grade students at Cam Giang High School, utilizing a combination of intuitive, qualitative, and quantitative methods A clear distinction is made between intuitively and empirically developed rating scales, with intuitive methods relying on expert judgment and experiential interpretation, while empirical methods are grounded in data and actual learner performances Furthermore, empirical scale development can be categorized into various sub-methods.
“quantitative” and “qualitative” based on the type of data they draw on
Fulcher (1996) and other scholars, including Brindley (1998) and Knoch (2009a), have highlighted that many assessment scales, designed primarily through expert judgment, lack empirical data on learner speech and writing characteristics This recognition of the limitations inherent in intuitive assessment scales has led to a shift towards more empirically grounded methods for scale development Nonetheless, it remains crucial to acknowledge the invaluable insights that experts contribute to this process The most effective rating scale development methods are those that integrate the strengths of intuitive, quantitative, and qualitative approaches.
The construction of a marking scheme, as outlined by Taylor (2011), involves three key phases: intuitive, qualitative, and quantitative This study adapts these phases to fit the specific context of the researcher In the intuitive phase, the researcher reviews existing marking criteria and descriptors from both global and Vietnamese contexts, alongside teaching materials and course objectives, to draft an initial marking scheme Feedback is then gathered from six experienced high school teachers The qualitative phase involves submitting the marking scheme to experts for review and refinement, ensuring its internal coherence through interviews with both teachers and experts Finally, the quantitative phase analyzes student scores from oral tests to validate the effectiveness of the marking scheme and its assessment criteria.
The researcher establishes evaluation criteria for her marking scheme by utilizing the communicative language ability framework from Cannale & Swain (1980) and Bachman and Palmer (1996), alongside the CEFR and speaking section assessment criteria This leads to the selection of four analytic marking categories for the 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 involves the correct and suitable application of various grammatical forms (Taylor, 2011) At the A2 proficiency level, students demonstrate some ability to use simple structures accurately; however, they often make fundamental errors, such as confusing tenses and neglecting subject-verb agreement Despite these mistakes, their intended meaning is generally understandable (Council of Europe, 2001, p 123).
Vocabulary is crucial for candidates as it reflects their ability to utilize a diverse range of words to fulfill task requirements At the A2 level, students should possess enough vocabulary to handle everyday transactions related to familiar situations and topics (Council of Europe, 2001, p 121).
Pronunciation encompasses a student's capability to articulate individual sounds, connect words, and employ stress and intonation to convey meaning (Thornbury, 2005, p 128) According to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), pronunciation is featured in an illustrative scale for phonological control, specifically at proficiency level A2 At this level, students are anticipated to develop foundational pronunciation skills.
“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 are essential skills for students, encompassing their ability to communicate with appropriate continuity, speech rate, and effort These skills involve effectively linking ideas and using language in a coherent manner, adhering to formal structures According to MOET (2014), a student at proficiency level A2 demonstrates these foundational communication abilities.
An individual is capable of conveying their thoughts in brief statements, despite noticeable pauses and the need for reformulation They can effectively utilize common connectors to link simple sentences, allowing them to narrate a story or outline information in a straightforward list format.
To achieve the course's objectives, emphasis was placed on effective message delivery and communication over strict language accuracy, leading to an unequal weighting of assessment categories In the speaking section, Fluency and Coherence, along with Vocabulary, are prioritized, each receiving a weight of 30% (marked out of 10 and multiplied by 3), while Grammar and Pronunciation are weighted at 20% each (marked out of 10 and multiplied by 2) (MOET, 2014, p.190).
In determining the appropriate number of assessment levels for speaking ability, careful consideration was given to ensure that the levels effectively capture varying degrees of proficiency without overwhelming busy school teachers, who have limited training in evaluation (Nakatsuhara, 2007) The researcher established five distinct levels for each marking category—poor, bad, average, good, and excellent—corresponding to scores ranging from 0 to 4 Students' scores will be calculated using a specified 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
The marking scheme was developed based on the CEFR framework, expanding levels A1 and A2 into four categories: bad, average, good, and excellent, with level 0 indicating no English competence The descriptors for each level were tailored from the CEFR to meet task requirements To assess the validity of the marking scheme, a draft version was shared with six teachers for their feedback The guiding interview questions centered on criteria, performance levels, descriptors, and the overall presentation of the marking scheme.
Following the completion of the initial draft, the marking scheme was reviewed by two experts who provided feedback through an interview process This step aimed to enhance the internal coherence of the scale, ensuring consistent and efficient wording for usability by examiners during assessments.
The marking scheme developed in this study was pilot-tested with 150 tenth-grade students at Cam Giang High School, who participated in a mock speaking test that was audio recorded Prior to the test, students were informed of their topics and had 1 to 2 minutes to introduce themselves, followed by 3 minutes to present their topic Rater training lasting approximately one hour was conducted for two experts, three teachers, and the researcher, focusing on establishing a common understanding of the rating scale It was clarified that level 5 in the marking scheme represented the highest satisfactory achievement for students at Cam Giang High School, distinct from other proficiency tests The group assessed the first 10 audio recordings collectively, discussing their scoring rationale, before individually evaluating the remaining 140 recordings Finally, the scores assigned by the teachers and experts were compared and discussed to ensure consistency.
Data collection instruments
2.5.1 The interview with the teachers and experts
The present study utilized interviews to gather insights from six English teachers at Cam Giang High School and two experts, employing a rubric checklist ELS 11.00 from NC State University to design the questions The interview guide consisted of 12 questions categorized into four sections: the first section focused on comments regarding the marking scheme criteria, the second explored opinions on performance levels, the third sought feedback on descriptors, and the final section investigated general thoughts and suggestions for improving the marking scheme Participants received the interview questions one week in advance, and each interview lasted approximately 8 to 10 minutes, with audio recordings made to facilitate data analysis To encourage open communication, participants were allowed to respond in Vietnamese.
In a pilot test involving 150 students, participants were assessed on the topic of music, which they had studied during the second semester Prior to the test, students were briefed on the topic and given 5 minutes for preparation, followed by a speaking duration of 3 to 5 minutes Their responses were audio-recorded, and subsequently, each recording was evaluated using a 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?
The oral test aims to gather data on the scores assigned by teachers and experts utilizing the marking scheme The researcher seeks to determine the effectiveness of this marking scheme in being successfully implemented by educators.
The researcher aims to explore the correlations between teachers and experts, measuring success through the quantitative scores achieved by both groups.
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 gathered from the interviews were thoroughly analyzed, allowing for a clearer understanding of the insights and feedback from experts and teachers regarding the marking scheme.
A total of 150 students' oral tests were evaluated by two experts, two teachers, and the researcher using a new marking scheme The students' scores were analyzed using SPSS statistical software to determine the correlations between the assessments made by each examiner and those of the other evaluators.
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
The data for this study were gathered from students' oral tests, and a Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to explore relationships among teachers, between teachers and experts, and among various criteria Pearson's correlation measures the strength and direction of the linear relationship between paired data, represented by the value 'r', which ranges from -1 to +1 A value close to +1 or -1 indicates a strong relationship, with positive values showing that as one variable increases, the other also increases, while negative values suggest that as one variable increases, the other decreases According to Ratner (2008), an r value of 0 signifies no linear relationship, indicating no tendency for one variable to change in relation to the other Values ranging from more than 0 to less than +0.3 (or from more than -0.3 to less than 0) indicate a weak correlation.
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
The Pearson correlation test in SPSS provides both the p-value and the r value, which are essential for determining the presence of correlation within a population A small p-value, typically less than 0.05, indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis, allowing for its rejection (Rumsey, 2003) In this thesis, a small p-value supports the likelihood of correlation among scorers and criteria.
This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the study's context and participant selection It outlines the rationale behind employing a multi-method approach and the specific procedures for the marking scheme Key data collection instruments included semi-structured interviews and oral tests, with a detailed discussion on data collection and analysis procedures The following chapter will present the results of the data analysis and discuss the 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 experts All significant correlations are displayed in tables
Table 1: Pearson Correlation on Grammar
Table 1 illustrates the correlations among scorers for grammar criteria, revealing significant relationships between all pairs of teachers and experts Notably, the strongest correlations were observed between Teacher 1 and Teacher 3, Teacher 2 and Teacher 3, as well as between Teacher 1 and Teacher 2, with correlation coefficients of 0.811 and 0.800, respectively.
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
The study reveals significant correlations among teachers, particularly between teacher 1 and expert 1 (p=.000) and between teacher 2 and expert 1 (p=.000) Notably, the relationships among teachers are stronger than those observed among experts Additionally, the correlations between teachers and expert 2 are higher compared to the interactions between teachers and experts in the Grammar criteria.
Table 2: Pearson Correlation on vocabulary
In terms of vocabulary skills, the correlations among examiners demonstrate a positive significance, with the strongest correlations observed between teachers Specifically, the correlation coefficients are 0.812 between Teacher 1 and Teacher 2, 0.801 between Teacher 2 and Teacher 3, and 0.796 between Teacher 1 and Teacher 3 Additionally, other correlations show a moderate level of significance, ranging from 0.408 to 0.510.
Table 3: Pearson Correlation on pronunciation
Table 3 illustrates the correlation among examiners regarding pronunciation, revealing strong correlations among teachers, with values ranging from 787 to 816 Notable examples include a correlation of 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, and r = 394 (p = 000) between teacher 1 and expert 1 While these correlations are weaker compared to other criteria, they still demonstrate a positive moderate value, with all correlations exceeding r > 0.3 (p = 000).
Table 4: Pearson Correlation on fluency and coherence
Table 4 illustrates the significant positive correlations in Fluency and Coherence among examiners, with correlation coefficients (r) ranging from 506 to 806 (p=.000) Notably, the strongest correlations are observed among teachers, with r values of 806, 769, and 757 between teacher 1 and teacher 3.
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
Table 5 reveals that the strongest correlations among teachers correspond to high overall scores, with significant correlations reaching r values of 905, 892, and 892 (p=.000) between teacher pairs This suggests that the teacher training was effective, allowing for interchangeability among teachers Additionally, moderate correlations between teachers and experts, with r values ranging from 616 to 672, indicate a positive relationship, despite weaker correlations in pronunciation skills However, these weaker correlations do not diminish the strong overall correlations among the scorers.
This study aimed to develop a marking scheme for the end-of-semester oral test for tenth-grade students, based on interviews with teachers and experts who agreed on four assessment criteria: Grammar, Vocabulary, Pronunciation, and Fluency and Coherence, each rated on a scale from 0 to 4 The descriptors were aligned with the CEFR standards Analysis of students' oral scores revealed a high correlation among scorers, with teachers showing a stronger correlation than experts This was attributed to three teachers assessing the first ten students collaboratively, discussing their scoring rationale, and then individually evaluating the remaining 140 students Consequently, there was consistency in scoring among teachers, with high correlation coefficients (r > 0.7) across criteria and total scores, reaching r values of 892 and 905 (p = 000).
Teachers appear to be somewhat interchangeable in their assessments, with correlations between two experts showing a moderate range (r values from 0.482 to 0.642) These experts, who assessed students' speaking performance based on a marking scheme and their CEFR experience, had limited experience with high school students Notably, pronunciation received the lowest correlation (r values from 0.333 to 0.446) among the assessed skills, likely due to the teachers' shared local accent and familiarity with their students, contrasting with the experts' higher standards influenced by their extensive interaction with native speakers Despite the weaker correlation in pronunciation, the overall scoring among assessors remained high (r > 0.6), indicating that the marking scheme is effective for use by teachers in schools.
Summary of the study
The study focused on developing a marking scheme for the end-of-semester English oral test for tenth-grade students at Cam Giang High School To address the research questions regarding the marking criteria and descriptors, the researcher reviewed existing marking schemes, course materials, and teaching content to create an initial version Feedback was gathered from six experienced high school teachers and two experts from the Center for Language Testing and Assessment through structured interviews Additionally, student oral test scores were analyzed to explore correlations among scorers The findings of this research hold significant implications for improving assessment practices in English oral testing.
The marking scheme for assessing students' speaking achievements was developed based on feedback from teachers and experts, incorporating four key categories: Grammar, Pronunciation, Vocabulary, and Fluency and Coherence, with performance levels ranging from poor to excellent (0 to 4) The descriptors were aligned with the CEFR, specifically targeting level A2, and were revised for clarity based on educator input Notably, the pronunciation criteria now include aspects of word stress and intonation across levels 2 to 4, and a guideline was added to address situations where students use correct grammar and pronunciation but provide incorrect answers A pilot trial revealed a strong correlation among scorers, with r values between 333 and 905 (p=.000), indicating high reliability, particularly among teachers who had firsthand experience assessing the initial ten students Although the correlation for pronunciation between teachers and experts was slightly lower due to differing backgrounds, the overall scoring remained consistent, demonstrating the marking scheme's applicability for evaluating students' speaking skills effectively.
The study offers both practical and theoretical benefits, serving as an effective assessment tool for teachers at Cam Giang High School to evaluate students' oral tests It enables educators to provide meaningful feedback on students' strengths and weaknesses, clarifying expectations and guiding them toward their goals Additionally, it encourages self-assessment, allowing students to reflect on their learning process Theoretically, the study aims to establish a marking scheme that can serve as a model for developing similar assessment tools and raising awareness among 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 demonstrates that the marking scheme is effective for teachers in evaluating students' oral tests, serving as a valuable tool for assessing speaking proficiency Additionally, it is recommended that this marking scheme be integrated with the assessment of the other three 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 notable limitations, including the constrained timeframe and knowledge of the researcher, which resulted in only the development of a marking scheme Additionally, the pilot study's limited number and variety of subjects affect its external validity, raising concerns about the reliability of the results for broader generalization Furthermore, despite efforts to ensure objectivity, the scoring of the pilot test may still be subjective The teachers involved are from Cam Giang High School, sharing a geographical region and local accent with the students, suggesting that results could vary significantly if the research were conducted in a different setting with other educators These factors collectively diminish the objectivity of the scoring process.
Suggestions for further studies
Developing an effective marking scheme is a complex task, and current research on this topic remains limited The study's constraints include a small participant pool and insufficient time for thorough analysis Therefore, it is highly recommended that future research involve a larger sample size and allocate more time to construct and validate the marking scheme, ultimately creating a more reliable tool for evaluating students' speaking achievements.
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,
The article discusses the significance of effective teaching and assessment strategies in education, highlighting the need for a structured framework to enhance learning outcomes It emphasizes the importance of aligning assessment methods with teaching objectives to ensure that students acquire the necessary skills and knowledge Furthermore, the document outlines best practices for educators to evaluate student performance, fostering an environment of continuous improvement and accountability in the learning process By implementing these strategies, educators can better support diverse learners and promote a more inclusive educational experience.
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: UCLES/Cambridge University Press
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%
In the realm of language testing, Milanovic et al (1996) explore the theoretical concerns and analytical methods involved in developing rating scales, contributing to the validation processes outlined by Cumming and Brerwick Similarly, Nakatsuhara (2007) focuses on creating a rating scale specifically designed to evaluate the English speaking skills of Japanese upper-secondary students, highlighting the importance of tailored assessment tools in educational contexts.
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 provides comprehensive resources on assessment rubrics, emphasizing their significance in educational evaluation The work of Politt and Murray (1996) explores the critical factors that raters focus on during performance testing, highlighting the intersection of cognition and assessment Together, these sources underscore the importance of structured assessment tools in enhancing the quality and reliability of educational outcomes.
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
The correlation coefficient is a statistical measure that defines the strength and direction of a relationship between two variables, as explained by Ratner (2008) Understanding this concept is crucial for analyzing data effectively Additionally, Rumsey (2003) provides a comprehensive overview of statistical principles in "Statistics for Dummies," making complex topics more accessible Furthermore, Rychtarick (2014) focuses on developing criteria for evaluating speaking skills, emphasizing the importance of clear assessment standards in educational contexts.
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
The individual possesses a robust vocabulary, enabling them to articulate clear descriptions, convey viewpoints, and construct well-developed arguments with minimal hesitation They effectively utilize complex sentence structures to enhance their communication.
The individual possesses a diverse vocabulary that allows for effective communication in unpredictable situations They can articulate the key aspects of ideas or problems with clarity and precision Additionally, they are capable of expressing their thoughts on abstract concepts and cultural subjects, including music and films.
The individual possesses a functional command of the language, enabling them to communicate on various topics such as family, hobbies, work, travel, and current events However, their vocabulary limitations occasionally lead to repetition and challenges in expressing thoughts clearly, resulting in some hesitation and the use of circumlocutions.
Possessing a foundational vocabulary allows individuals to navigate daily situations effectively, even if they often need to adjust their messages and seek the right 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
Possessing a strong vocabulary enables individuals to easily navigate gaps in communication through paraphrasing, demonstrating minimal hesitation in finding the right expressions Additionally, they exhibit a proficient understanding of idiomatic phrases and colloquial language, enhancing their conversational skills.
The individual possesses a strong vocabulary related to their field and general subjects They can adapt their phrasing to minimize repetition; however, occasional lexical gaps may lead to hesitation and roundabout expressions.
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
The article demonstrates an understanding of basic structures, yet it frequently contains fundamental errors, such as tense inconsistencies and lack of subject-verb agreement Despite these mistakes, the intended message is generally clear.
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
Individuals can effectively communicate through concise sentences on common topics, such as providing directions They demonstrate a reasonable level of phonetic accuracy when writing, particularly with short words that are part of their spoken vocabulary, even if their spelling may not always adhere to standard conventions.
Individuals can replicate familiar words and short phrases, such as simple signs, instructions, and the names of everyday objects and shops They are also able to spell their address, nationality, and other personal information accurately.
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
Understanding and recognizing the key differences in customs, attitudes, values, and beliefs between one’s own culture and that of the surrounding community is essential This awareness fosters respect and enhances interactions, allowing for better integration and communication within diverse environments.