Looking Beyond Scores a Study of Rater Orientations and Ratings of Speaking
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Looking Beyond Scores A Study of Rater Orientations and Ratings of Speaking Linda Borger DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SPECIAL EDUCATION © LINDA BORGER, 2014 Licentiate thesis in Subject Matter Education at the Department of Education and Special Education, Faculty of Education, University of Gothenburg. The licentiate thesis is available for full text download at Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive (GUPEA): http://hdl.handle.net/2077/38158 This licentiate thesis has been carried out within the framework of the Graduate School in Foreign Language Education “De främmande språkens didaktik” (FRAM). The Graduate School, leading to a licentiate degree, is a collaboration between the universities of Gothenburg, Lund, Stockholm and Linnaeus University, and is funded by the Swedish Research Council (project number 729-2011-5277). Abstract Title: Looking Beyond Scores – A Study of Rater Orientations and Ratings of Speaking Author: Linda Borger Language: English with a Swedish summary GUPEA: http://hdl.handle.net/2077/38158 Keywords: Performance assessment, paired speaking test, rater orientations, rater variability, inter-rater reliability, The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), Swedish national tests of English The present study aims to examine rater behaviour and rater orientations across two groups of raters evaluating oral proficiency in a paired speaking test, part of a mandatory Swedish national test of English. Six authentic conversations were rated by (1) a group of Swedish teachers of English (n = 17), using national performance standards, and (2) a group of external raters (n = 14), using scales from the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), the latter to enable a tentative comparison between the Swedish foreign language syllabus for English and the CEFR. Raters provided scores and written comments regarding features of the performances that contributed to their judgement. Statistical analyses of the Swedish raters’ scores show reasonable degrees of variability and, in general, acceptable inter-rater reliabilities, albeit with obvious room for improvement. In addition, the CEFR raters judged the performances of the Swedish students to be, on average, at the intended levels of the test. Analyses of the written comments, using NVivo 10 software, show that raters took a wide array of features into account in their holistic rating decision, however with test-takers’ linguistic and pragmatic competences, and interaction strategies the most salient. Raters also seemed to heed the same features, indicating considerable agreement regarding the construct. Further, a tentative comparison of the written comments and scores shows that the raters noticed fairly similar features across proficiency levels but in some cases evaluated them differently. The findings of the present study have implications for the interpretation of oral test results, and they also provide information that may be useful in the development of tasks and guidelines for different types of oral language assessment in different educational settings. Table of contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 11 Background ........................................................................................................ 12 The Swedish context ................................................................................... 13 National tests of English ............................................................................. 14 The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages ....... 15 Aim and research questions ............................................................................. 17 CHAPTER TWO: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ....................................................... 19 Validity and reliability ........................................................................................ 19 Language assessment ......................................................................................... 21 Communicative language assessment ............................................................. 22 Communicative competence ...................................................................... 23 Challenges for communicative language testing ...................................... 28 Performance assessment ................................................................................... 29 Assessment of oral proficiency ........................................................................ 31 The nature of speaking ................................................................................ 32 Speaking test formats .................................................................................. 33 Singleton and paired speaking tests ........................................................... 34 Co-construction and interactional competence as a criterion ................ 35 CHAPTER THREE: PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON SECOND/FOREIGN LANGUAGE PERFORMANCE TESTS OF SPEAKING ...................................................................... 37 Speaking tests ..................................................................................................... 38 Inter-rater reliability ..................................................................................... 38 Rater orientations ......................................................................................... 40 Paired speaking tests ......................................................................................... 43 CHAPTER FOUR: MATERIAL AND METHOD .......................................................... 49 The speaking test ............................................................................................... 50 The test-takers .................................................................................................... 50 The Swedish raters............................................................................................. 51 Rating criteria for Swedish raters ............................................................... 51 The external CEFR raters ................................................................................. 52 Rating criteria for the external CEFR raters ............................................. 53 The rating scales ................................................................................................. 54 Data collection procedure ................................................................................ 55 Data analysis ....................................................................................................... 57 Analysis of quantitative data ....................................................................... 57 Analysis of qualitative data ......................................................................... 58 Use of computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software .................. 67 Methodological considerations ........................................................................ 67 Validity and reliability of the quantitative method ................................... 67 Validity and reliability of the qualitative method ..................................... 68 Closing remarks on validity and reliability ................................................ 69 Ethical concerns ................................................................................................ 70 Informed consent and confidentiality ....................................................... 70 CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS ........................................................................................ 71 Descriptive statistics for Swedish raters ......................................................... 71 Inter-rater reliability of Swedish raters ............................................................ 76 Descriptive statistics for external CEFR raters .............................................. 78 Analyses of written rater comments ................................................................ 81 Comments per category .................................................................................... 86 Accuracy ........................................................................................................ 86 Coherence ..................................................................................................... 89 Fluency .......................................................................................................... 91 Intelligibility .................................................................................................. 93 Interaction ..................................................................................................... 95 Other ............................................................................................................. 99 Production strategies ................................................................................... 99 Range ........................................................................................................... 101 Sociolinguistic appropriateness ................................................................ 103 Task realisation ........................................................................................... 104 Comments coded as rater reflection ........................................................ 105 Comments coded as inter- or intra-candidate comparison .................. 108 Relationship between rater comments