CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
G. Definition of the Key Terms
2. Scoring Criteria of Speaking Test
To score the speaking performance of a test taker, especially oral presentation, the criteria to use must be in line with the speaking tasks he or she needs to perform. In other word, in order to achieve at a given level and to explain the students speaking ability, of course, the students must be tested. There are some kinds of rubric for English speaking test. Weir (1990:177) states that ―there are five components in scoring speaking test‖. They are accuracy, appropriacy, range, flexibility, and size. Each of components has for levels or rating. The levels show the performance expected is relatively simple at the low level and progressively more sophisticated at higher levels.
Furthermore, Brown in Brown and Abeywickrama (2009:213-214) argues that ―the oral proficiency scoring categories consists of fluency, pronunciation, task, grammar, vocabulary, and comprehension.‖ In line with Hughes (2003:131- 132) argues ―the same criteria to rate a candidate‘s speaking proficiency. They are accent, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. Based on each criterion, a candidate‘s speaking proficiency is rated using six-point scale‖. The scale is as shown below:
Table 3
Proficiency Description
Components Scores Description
Accent
1 2 3
4 5 6
Pronunciation frequently unintelligible.
Frequent gross errors and a very heavy accent make understanding difficult, require frequent repetition.
―Foreign accent‖ requires concentrated listening, and mispronunciations lead to occasional misunderstanding and apparent errors in grammar or vocabulary.
Marked ―foreign accent‖ and occasional mispronunciations which do not interfere with understanding
No conspicuous mispronunciations, but would not be taken for a native speaker.
Native pronunciation, with no trace of ―foreign accent‖.
Grammar
1 2 3 4 5 6
Grammar is almost entirely inaccurate phrases.
Constant errors showing control of very few major patters and frequently preventing communication.
Frequent errors showing some major patterns uncontrolled and causing occasional irritation and misunderstanding.
Occasional errors showing imperfect control of some patterns but no weakness that causes misunderstanding.
Few errors with no patterns of failure.
No more than two errors during the interview.
Vocabulary
1 2
Vocabulary inadequate for even the simplest conversation.
Vocabulary limited to basic personal and survival
3 4 5 6
areas (time, food, transportation, family, etc)
Choice of words sometimes inaccurate, limitations of vocabulary prevent discussion of some common professional and social topics.
Professional vocabulary adequate to discuss special interests; general vocabulary permits discussion of any non-technical subject with some circumlocutions.
Professional vocabulary broad and precise; general vocabulary adequate to cope with complex practical problems and varied social situations.
Vocabulary apparently as accurate and as extensive as that of an educated native speaker.
Fluency
1 2 3 4 5 6
Speech is so halting and fragmentary that conversation is virtually impossible.
Speech is very slow and uneven except for short or routine sentences.
Speech is frequently hesitant and jerky, sentences may be left uncompleted.
Speech is occasionally hesitant, with some unevenness caused by rephrasing and groping for words.
Speech is effortless and smooth, but perceptibly non native in speech and evenness.
Speech on all professional and general topics as effortless and smooth as a native speaker‘s.
Comprehension 1 2 3 4 5
6
Understands too little for simplest type of conversation.
Understands only slow, very simple speech on common social and tourist topics; requires constants repetition and rephrasing.
Understands careful, somewhat simplified speech when engaged in a dialogue, but may require considerable repetition and rephrasing.
Understands quite well normal educated speech when engaged in a dialogue, but requires occasional repetition and rephrasing.
Understands everything in normal educated conversation except for very colloquial or low frequency items, or exceptionally rapid or slurred speech.
Understands everything in both formal and colloquial speech to be expected of an educated native speaker.
(Adapted from Hughes, 2003:131-132)
This research adapted speaking skill rubric from Hughes (2003) in calculating students‘ scores on speaking test. Before using that rubric, the researcher did a little revision on description of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, and comprehension at point 6. In original rubric, it was stated that ―use of grammar, vocabulary, speed of speech, and students‘
understanding were as native speakers‖. It was impossible when applied it in the researcher‘s classroom because it was rather hard for students to be alike a native speaker. Then, the ―comprehension‖ of the Hughes‘ s speaking categories was substituted with ―content‖.
Due to the instrument of this test was oral presentation test in form of presentation-monolog; the ―comprehension‖ was not appropriate to measure their speaking skill. The student just spoke by him/herself without interaction or dialog with their partners, therefore the category ―comprehension‖ was not needed.
Furthermore, Brown and Abeywickrama (2009:219) explain that the criteria of oral presentation can be divided into two parts as follows:
First, content includes: the purpose or objective of the presentation (was accomplished), the introduction (was lively and got attention), the main idea (was clearly stated toward the beginning), the supporting points (were clearly expressed, and supported by facts and argument), and the conclusion (restated the main idea or purpose). Second, delivery includes:
gestures and body language (well used), eye contact with audience (maintained), natural and fluent language, volume of speech (appropriate), rate of speech (appropriate), pronunciation (clear and comprehensible), grammar (correct and did not prevent understanding), speaker‘s using visual aids, handouts, etc, effectively, speaker‘s enthusiasm and interest, and the speaker‘s responding to audience question well.
Then, Knight (1992:295) states that ―the criteria of assessing speaking skills are grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency, conversational skill, sociolinguistic skill, non verbal, and content.‖ Louisiana voices web explains that
the criteria for assessing oral presentation, namely, awareness of audience, strength of material/organization, and delivery. Moreover, information technology evaluation services argues that about evaluating students presentation in speaking skill that are organization, subject knowledge, graphics, mechanics, eye contact, and elocution.
Based on the experts above, it is clear that learners need to know the ability to comprehend the speech as well as speak. It involves many different components that related each other to improve speaking ability of learners.
Besides, learners should also know the characteristic of successful speaking activity. Finally, it can be concluded that speaking skill can be seen in a process of socialization through communication and it has many aspects of language such as pronunciation, structure, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension, sociolinguistic skill, conversation skill, and others.
Based on the criteria proposed above, the researcher used several criteria using 6 point scale, as presented in the following table:
Table 4
Scoring Criteria for Assessing Oral Presentation (A Speech)
No Aspect/Components 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Accent/Pronunciation 2 Grammar
3 Vocabulary 4 Fluency (Rate)
5 Introduction (how effective?) 6 Content (well organized?) 7 Voice quality
8 Non –verbal communication (gestures) 9 Eye Contact
10 Conclusion (effective and interesting?)
Based on the idea above, it can be concluded that there are several criteria that can be used in testing speaking. The criteria used should be used to decide the students; speaking skill or ability.