Using a Videocamera and Task-Based Activities

to Make Classroom Oral Testing

a More Realistic Communicative Experience
Margaret Haggstrom
Loyola College

ABSTRACT With the growing popularity of the communicative approach to language teach-
ing, much emphasis has been placed on improving students’ oral proficiencyin the foreign lan-
guage they are studying. Many questions still remain, however-both practical and
theoretical-as to how to best integrate oral testing into the classroom. This paper will provide
an overview of the most widely used methods of classroom oral testing, as well as evaluations
of their practicality and conformity to the goals o f communicative teaching and testing. I will
also describe ways I have successfully used the videocamera and task-based activities to make
oral testing a more realistic communicative experience, one that is both less time-consuming
and easier for the teacher to evaluate accurately and, most importantly, enjoyable rather than
stress-producing for the student.
A few years ago, as final exam time loomed First, I will briefly outline general principles
closer, I was particularly dreading another of communicative language teaching and test-
round of oral exams since I knew I would ing. Next, I will provide a n overview of the
have to find at least 20 hours outside of class most widely used methods of communicative
to test the 80 students in my beginning and in- classroom oral testing, as well as evaluations of
termediate French classes. I also knew that, their practicality and conformity to the goals of
despite my status as a certified ACTFL tester communicative teaching and testing as out-
and my considerable experience rating stu- lined in the first section. Finally, I will describe
dents’ performances, my reliability would in detail a method of oral testing that I have
probably be as low as my morale after the first used successfully in my first- and second-year
15 back-to-back exams. Furthermore, since language classes, as well as in my conversa-
students typically encounter this type of test- tion and composition courses. I have found
ing only once or twice a semester, their anxi- that this method, which consists of videotap
ety level over this part of the final exam was ing task-based activities, is one that provides
quite high. Oral testing had become a n un- an efficient and accurate means of testing for
pleasant and stressful experience for both me prochievement and is also an enjoyable e x p e
and my students. After surviving the semester, rience for students. Moreover, it addresses
I decided to explore various ways to make what Shohamy (1990) has identified as a pri-
oral classroom testing less time-consuming, ority for testing in the 1990s to use tests “for irn-
easier to evaluate accurately and, most im- provement of teaching and learning. . . .” by
portantly, a positive learning experience for shifting “. . . from tests that are final, summa-
the students rather than another stress-pro- tive, and prescriptive, to tests that are more for-
ducing ordeal. What follows are the results of mative in nature and that can be used as part
my exploration. of the instructional process” (389).
~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Margaret Haggstrorn (Ph D , University of Minnesota) Communicative Teaching and Testing

is Assistant Professor of French at Loyola College, Balti- The Communicative Approach has spawned
more, MD. a variety of teaching methodologies, and there

Foreign Language Annals, 27, No. 2, 1994

 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SUMMER 1994

is still much debate about issues such as the To date, oral classroom testing has gener-
roles of teacher input a n d grammar in the ally taken the form of skits, role-plays, indirect
communicatively oriented classroom .I Never- testing in the language lab, or ACTFLstyle in-
theless, those who adopt this approach, what- terviews. Much recent literature and research
ever their method, accept the notion of evaluating these formats in terms of feasibility,
language use as “social behavior, purposeful, reliability, and their fidelity to the goals of
and always in context” (Savignon 1991, 273) communicative teaching and testing, how-
and espouse the view that the primary goal of ever, point out that there are many draw-
language teaching is to train students to “per- backs-and sometimes serious ones-to all
ceive and operate within real-world situations, of these formats.
in order to perform real-world tasks” (Swaffar
1989, 33). This new goal has given teachers A C W t y l e Interviews
added responsibilities-not only must w e The ACTFLstyle interview can give teachers
help our students learn the target foreign lan- trained in OPI (Oral Proficiency Interview)
guage and about the cultures in which it is techniques a great deal of information about
spoken, w e must also equip them with the the overall oral proficiency level of their stu-
strategic tools necessary to become au- dents, information that can be very valuable
tonomous learners in the target cultures. This for student placement and in evaluating the
view of language and the purposes of lan- global strengths and weaknesses of a foreign
guage study, Swaffar (1989) points out, has language program. To be accurate, however,
had considerable impact on recent teaching, these interviews must b e carried out by
testing, and research efforts, one of the most trained testers and, in spite of the popularity of
important being its focus on the learner and the ACTFL workshops, most teachers still have
the learning process, rather than only on lan- not received this training. Moreover, the OPI
guage as an end product (34). was designed to measure global proficiency,
If our teaching goal, then, is to develop stu- not to test mastery of specific course material.
dents’ communicative competence and make In addition, because the various levels of pro-
them autonomous learners, our tests should ficiency are quite broad, it is quite common
b e designed to evaluate students’ language for students to remain within the same level
use in real-world communicative tasks. This for several semesters, thus making it difficult
means, Swain (1984) says, that the assessment to use the OPI to measure student progress,
tasks we design need to be “capable of gener- particularly during any given one-semester
ating language that includes grammatical, so- course.
ciolinguistic, discourse, and strategic perfor- The ACTFL-style student-teacher interview
mance” (1 1). Furthermore, Wesche (1983,42) also poses very real problems from a practical
notes, they must reflect conditions of real- standpoint, as any teacher who has tried to ad-
world communication, which Morrow (1979) minister them to several classes in one semes-
has identified as including: 1) interaction; 2) ter c a n testify. First, they are extremely
unpredictability in language use; 3) a purpose timeconsuming to conduct: in order to mea-
for the communication; 4) language appropri- sure a student’s proficiency level with any re-
ate to the situation; and 5) both a linguistic liability, the interviewer must go through a
and situational context. From the perspective warm-up, level checks, probes, and a wind-
of the classroom teacher, w e are also con- down, which takes between ten and thirty
cerned that our tests allow us to measure stu- minutes per student. Moreover, it is difficult
dents’ progress and mastery of specific course for teachers to mentally “step b a c k and arrive
material, and in the interest of fairness we want at a n accurate assessment “on the spot” when
tests that we can score with accuracy and that they must focus their energies on playing an
are also feasible in terms of the amount of time active role in the interview (van Lier 1989,
they take to administer and grade. 501). Taping the interviews and listening to

162
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS--SUMMER 1994

them later, as Omaggio (1986, 345) suggests, out the role-plays with the teacher assuming
only compounds the time problem. Addition- one of the roles, or in pairs or small groups
ally, Mitchell (1985) has demonstrated that it with other students. Roleplays can be acted
is difficult for teachers to remain impartial out for the teacher alone, or in front of the
when participating in oral conversations and other members of the class. Depending on
roleplays with their own students. In a study their purposes, instructors can create role-
in which she recorded and analyzed an expe- plays that are able to test specific structures,
rienced teacher participating in 54 role-play functions, or lexical items (“You are in the
conversations with 13-year-old second-year post office; buy two aerograms and stamps to
French students, she found that the teacher send a post card to the U.S.”), or open-ended
tailored her utterances according to her ones to test for more global communicative
knowledge of each student’s ability and self- competence (“You are on a first date with
confidence in the foreign language (171). As someone you don’t know well; make conver-
a result, only the stronger and more self-confi-sation.”). While role-plays meet the theoreti-
dent students were challenged to cope with cal criteria of communicative testing, they
words and expressions they did not know, al- nevertheless share some of the practical and
lowing them to demonstrate their strategic assessment drawbacks of ACTFLstyle testing.
competence (1 72). First, whether the role-plays have a teacher/
Another observation about the ACTFL-style student or pair/small groups format, they are
interview seems particularly relevant to com- still very time-consuming to conduct, espe-
municative classroom testing. Newsham cially when the teacher has a large number of
(1989) argues convincingly that no matter students. Second, teacher participation in the
what role the instructor may pretend to play, itrole-plays again raises questions of 1) the
is almost impossible for students to forget thatteacher’s ability to assess student perfor-
they are talking to their teacher. Conse- mance accurately and impartially; and 2) the
quently, instead of the give and take of naturalimpracticality of recording and later listening
discourse, the student tends to take a “back to perhaps as many as a hundred ten-minute
seat” and let the teacher initiate and control role plays. Third, when the teacher assumes
all exchanges (342). A second criticism is that one of the parts in a role-play, students have a
the ACTFL-style interview places too much tendency to wait for the authority figure/
emphasis on the more formal question-an- grader to take the lead and direct the course
swer/teacherstudent format, and not enough of the dialogue (Valdman 1988, 125; van Lier
on role-plays that would allow students to 1989, 498). Additionally, Newsham (1989)
demonstrate their communicative proficiency questions whether stronger students are able
in a variety of sociolinguistic situations (Raf-to display their full competence, and whether
faldini 1988, 200). they might be penalized when performing
with significantly weaker students (342).
Role-Plays and Memorized Dialogues Recent research into foreign language anxi-
Much has been written about using role- ety raises another question about the reliabil-
plays both for teaching and testing in the ity of using roleplays and memorized skits to
classroom. Role-plays have wide appeal in test communicative competence, especially
communicative testing because they have the when performed with other students as an au-
potential of being able to generate grammati- dience. In the area of general classroom anxi-
cal, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic ety, it has been suggested that while some
performance and meet Morrow’s (1979) crite anxiety can have a positive influence, too
ria for characteristics of real life communica- high a level of anxiety can be debilitating
tion (interaction, unpredictability, purpose, (MacIntyre and Gardner, 1989), and several
authentic language, and context). For class- studies show that students consider speaking
room testing purposes, students typically act to be the most anxiety-provoking activity in

163
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE AN N A LS 4 U M M E R 1994

the foreign language classroom (Maclntyre all, our goal is to test for students’ real-world
and Gardner 1991; Young 1990; Young 1992; language use, which is generally not re-
Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope 1986). Moreover, hearsed and memorized. Unfortunately, when
this anxiety is compounded when students the preparation for the skits takes place out-
are singled out and must get u p in front of the side of the classroom, communication among
class and perform in the target language- the students most often takes place in English,
they fear looking foolish to their classmates not in the target language.
and this anxiety can have a detrimental effect
on their performance (Price 1991; Young Oral Testing in the Language Lab
1990; Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope 1991, 30). Larson (1984) argues that semidirect testing
Furthermore, if in communicative testing w e in the language lab, which elicits speech by
want to evaluate how the student is able to means of recorded or written questions, pic-
perform in real-world situations, having stu- tures, or the like, is a popular method for oral
dents perform in front of a large group of peo- testing because it has several advantages over
ple is hardly realistic. After all, how often will direct face-to-face testing: 1) it provides uni-
a student have to ask for a stamp, order a formity in testing and in its administration; 2)
meal, or make hotel reservations or a n ap- present day equipment allows teachers to lis-
pointment, with 30 people glued to his every ten to each station in the lab, thus enabling
word-and ready to tell him afterward how them to grade a whole class within o n e class
many mistakes h e made? period; 3) lab equipment that permits stu-
Evans, Gaudin, and Raveau (1987) found dents to record their answers outside of class
other difficulties when testing students in and without the teacher present, maximizes
pairs. They noticed that students were often efficient use of class time and gives both stu-
more concerned with the instructor’s reaction dents and teachers more flexibility in taking
to the dialogue-at times even pausing when or administering oral exams (500-501). In ad-
the teacher would make a notation-than dition, semidirect tests c a n set tasks that
their partner’s responses (104). When role- largely conform to the communicative testing
plays were assigned ahead of time, they dis- principles outlined earlier. There are, how-
covered a second problem: many students ever, several important drawbacks to this type
had learned what they would say by heart, so of classroom testing. First, while these tests
that n o authentic interaction between stu- can b e communicative, they often take the
dents took place. In the worst cases there form of questions or directives that elicit only
were “nondialogues” where, “A talks for two sentence-level utterances. Second, van Lier
minutes while B listens: B says ‘Ah oui,’ talks (1989) notes that having to speak into a mi-
for two minutes and so on ....” (105). Thissame crophone often inhibits student performance
lack of interaction, of real communication a n d is likely to cause more anxiety than a
during the testing situation, is also the biggest face-to-face interview (493). Third, Raffaldini
drawback to using memorized skits and dia- (1988) points out that since students never in-
logues to measure oral competency. It should teract directly with another person, the test
be pointed out, as several recent articles have cannot elicit a sample of interaction-based ex-
shown, that there can be very real communi- change and the collaborative negotiation of
cation going on among students in the target meaning that characterizes it (204). Several r e
language in the Preparation of role-plays and cent articles have explored ways to overcome
skits (Bledsoe 1992; Di Pietro 1987; Haggstrom this last limitation by using paired activities
1992). Obviously, since it is this collaborative that allow students to talk to each other
effort, and not necessarily the final recitation through the language lab audio network
that reveals students’ ability to communicate (Homstad 1986; Ward, n.d.). This type of test-
in the target language, it should be taken into ing, however, requires sophisticated language
consideration in the evaluation process. After lab equipment not available at many schools,

164
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE A N N A L S 4 U M M E R 1994

and a great deal of practice to learn how to The Teacher’sRole

use it successfully. Moreover, the teacher still During the exam, the teacher’s function is
has the problem of having to come up with a to move around the room and videotape stu-
grade for the students “on the spot.” dents as they participate in the task-based ac-
tivity. Occasionally, it is necessary to remind
Videotaping and Task-Based students to remain in pairs or small groups,
Communicative Activities since bunching together makes the subse-
Although I have experimented widely with quent evaluation of individual student perfor-
a variety of methods of oral classroom testing, mances more difficult. To ensure that I have
including those discussed in the sections enough samples to be able to evaluate their
above, the method I have found to be most performance, I videotape each student at
successful in my classes involves the use of a three different times during the 50-minute test-
videocamera to record task-based commu- ing period. Since students are frequently
nicative activities similar to those used daily in changing partners during the activity, it is
the classroom. My experience has been that quite easy to do this.
this method appears to overcome most of the
disadvantages of skits, role-plays, and ACTFL- Preparation
style interviews. Importantly, because this test- Students regularly engage in interactive ac-
ing promotes learning in addition to providing tivities of the same type as those that will be
evaluative data, and is not unduly time-con- used in the testing situation, and I frequently
suming to administer or correct, teachers can videotape them during these activities. This is
incorporate it into the classroom much more helpful for two reasons. First, students be-
often than traditional methods. As a result, it come accustomed to being videotaped, so
both reduces student anxiety and increases that this aspect of the testing process does not
accuracy of assessment by providing large inhibit their performance at exam time. Sec-
and frequent samples of student input. What ond, the videotapes supply valuable instruc-
follows are guidelines and suggestions for im- tional material that can be used as a teaching
plementing this method of oral testing. tool in the classroom and language lab. Sev-
eral recent articles have described ways in
Setting and Equipment which students’ own videotaped actions and
Testing takes place in the regular class- speech provide the foundation of classroom
room, a procedure students find reassuring activities designed to teach phonetics, vocab-
since unfamiliar surroundings can be sources ulary, and grammar (Orban and McLean
of stress in themselves. To videotape the 1990; Pelletier 1990). Orban and McLean
exam, 1 use the college’s fully automatic, bat- (1990) stress the value of regular, non-test-
tery-operated camcorder that is equipped mode videotaping as a tool for self-evaluation,
with a zoom lens, an excellent microphone and it is in this context that I have found stu-
capable of producing good sound quality dent videotapes particularly useful. Frequent
even when students are recorded from a dis- videotaping prepares them for oral testing and
tance, and a light sensor that automatically real-world communication by increasing their
adjusts as I move around the classroom. Since awareness of communicative strategies.
it is not necessary to stand right next to stu- When students analyze videos as an inclass
dents to videotape them, they are often un- activity, I ask questions designed to bring out
aware of when they are on camera. 1 use no positive aspects of student communication in
special lighting or props, and am able to d o order not to embarrass any individual student.
the taping without outside help. As a result, all For example, in a video taken of students
I need to do is schedule the use of the cam- completing a task that gives them practice
corder, and not call in already overworked with greetings and invitations, I mght ask stu-
technicians or lab assistants. dents to note the different expressions they

165
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALSAUMMER 1994

heard their classmates use to extend a n invi- mar, vocabulary, sociolinguistic, and strategic
tation, the kinds of activities in which students mistakes. For example, in a n activity where
were invited to participate, and the different some class members are asked to assume the
excuses students gave for refusing a n invita- identity of a shopkeeper, teacher, or police of-
tion. As a follow-up activity, they might be ficer, and others the role of tourists, the stu-
asked to judge which excuse was the most dents could b e asked to notice when the
convincing or the most ingenious. They might “tourists” forgot to use the formal “vous” form.
also be asked to make a list of the strategies In an activity that includes greeting and leave
they observed students using to make them- taking, they could be asked to notice which
selves understood when there was a break- individuals remembered to shake hands
down in communication. when extending greetings and saying good-
These exercises are useful for several rea- bye, and to avoid “pumping” the other per-
sons. First, they help alleviate much of the son’s hand in the American fashion. Students
anxiety about having what they say judged are also asked to chart their own progress
“right” or “wrong” by showing them that there from week to week, deciding which errors
are usually a variety of ways to express the they think are particularly important to cor-
same idea. Second, because strategic behav- rect, and to note down areas where they have
ior to compensate for breakdown in commu- improved. Whether used as an inclass activity
nication is presented as both a natural and a or in the language lab, student evaluations in-
positive trait, students feel less anxious when dicate that they react very favorably to activi-
they are unable to remember specific vocab- ties and analyses using videotape. Since they
ulary and, from their observations of the themselves are the “stars” of the videos, stu-
videos, they c a n build a repertoire of com- dents find activities based on them to be in-
pensatory strategies for their own use. Finally, teresting and worthwhile because they are
students may not readily recognize the trans- able to see the relevance of their analyses to
ferability of the skills they are learning their improved oral performance in class and
(Chamot and Kupper 1989, 13; Thompson o n tests. Furthermore, by increasing student
1987,52;Baker and Brown 1984,381-2;Brown, metacognitive and strategic awareness, these
Bransford, Ferrara, and Campione 1983, 133- analyses help students acquire the tools to b e
35). To give them practice in seeing how the c o m e more independent learners. Finally,
same skills and vocabulary can be used in a analyses that use the students’ own speech
variety of situations, students can be asked to and actions to furnish contexts and spring-
discuss and note down key vocabulary, func- boards for classroom and lab activities serve
tions and strategies used in each video. The to prepare the students for both the oral exam
different lists can then be compared through- and real-world communication.
out the semester to show how many of them
can be used in numerous situations. It is im- Selecting the Task
portant that the teacher point out explicitly- To be successful, activities for videotaping
and often-that what they are acquiring is not need not necessarily be elaborate or original,
just the vocabulary a n d grammatical struc- nor must their preparation be timeconsuming
tures necessary to deal with a few specific cir- for the instructor. There are many excellent
cumstances, but rather general strategies for sources of activities and tasks currently on the
communicating successfully in a wide range market that can easily b e adapted for use in
of real-world situations. the foreign language classroom in general,
When using the videos as individual h o m e and in videotaped testing in particular.2 By
work assignments in the language lab, I have keeping teaching and testing objectives
students view videos filmed in class and may clearly in mind when choosing activities and
ask them to identify specific errors they o r adapting them to conform to these objectives,
their classmates have made, including gram- 1 have found that many “tried and true” activi-

166
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS4UMMER 1994

ties work very well, including the ones that fol- third person to join them in an activity; 3) they
low. should mark off a realistic amount of time for
any activity they schedule (for example, if
MODEL I they make a n appointment to go to the
This task is a modified version of o n e de- movies they must block off at least two hours
scribed in Penny Ur’s (1 981) Discussions that on their schedule); 4) they may not skip any
Work. It is o n e that I have used successfully in of the classes or other commitments already
both first- and second-year language classes, o n their schedule; 5) they are told that they
and is used to test student mastery of the fol- may describe their own schedule to other stu-
lowing: dents, but are not to show it to them; 6) to
Functions: Introductions; extending, accept- keep students from “bunching,”they may talk
ing, and refusing invitations politely; to only one student at a time (or two, if there
expressing hesitation about an invita- is a n odd number of students in the class).’
tion; making excuses; trying to con- This activity is successful in stimulating in-
vince someone to do something. terstudent communication in a number of
Themes: Sports, health, leisure activities ways. The fact that students have a time limit
(movies, concerts, TV, etc.); school- and are told that they are to make as many a p
subject vocabulary. pointments as possible within this time frame
Grammatical Structures: Telling time; nega- produces a sense of urgency and keeps them
tions; using interrogatives; idiomatic on task. The situation also creates an informa-
uses of the verb “todo;”the verbs “to tion gap, requiring students to interact in
want” (oouloir),“to be able to” (pou- order to complete the activity. Moreover, un-
uoir), and “to have to” (deooir). like tasks which demand simply a transfer of
Nonverbal Features: Shaking hands when information, as is often the case in role-plays
greeting and saying good-bye; la bise. where students are told, for example, to find
Strategic: Asking for repetition; using circum- out what time a train leaves, how much the
locution; using interlocutors’ utter- ticket costs, and what platform it leaves from,
ances as a source of vocabulary and here an exchange of information is necessary
grammatical structure. to complete the task. As a result, since stu-
Students are told to imagine that it is their dents d o not know each others’ schedules,
first week in a program for foreigners in what appointments they have already made,
France, and that they want to meet their new or what their interests are, it is only by sharing
classmates and stay very busy to keep from information that they are able to make the a p
feeling homesick. The students are of many pointments. Making a date, then, is a collabo
different nationalities and French is the only rative effort since they must find out when
language they have in common. Students are they are both free and discuss individual likes
given different partially-completed five-day and dislikes in order to agree on activities they
schedules, and are told to move around the both enjoy. The initial lack of information
classroom, introduce themselves to their about other students’ schedules and interests
“new” classmates, try to make dates to d o also assures that each interaction will vary, as-
something with as many of them as possible, suring unpredictability in language use-a
and set a place and time to meet.“ There are characteristic of real-life communication. In
several rules designed to encourage maxi- this situation, it is the students who supply all
mum student participation and to make the language input-there is n o teacher to supply
activity reflect real-world social practices: 1) the initiative-and each student’s input in
they must politely refuse any invitation that turn determines the other student’s response.
would involve doing something they would Furthermore, with n o teacher input to “res-
not enjoy doing in real life; 2) they must get cue” them when a breakdown in communi-
the approval of their date before inviting a cation occurs, students have the opportunity

167
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SUMMER 1994

to demonstrate their strategic competence by MODEL 2

asking for or using repetition, circumlocution, This activity is one that I have used success-
gestures, and the like to overcome the diffi- fully in composition and conversation classes,
culty. and is used to test students’ mastery of the fol-
After about ten minutes, as dates are made lowing:
and time blocks are filled, it becomes more Functions: Expressing opinions, agreement,
and more difficult to schedule appointments disagreement, and emotions; inter-
and lengthy negotiation is often necessary. At rupting politely: persuading.
this point, the interaction goes beyond a n ex- Themes:Employment
change of factual information (What time are Grammatical Structures: Reviewing the future
you free on Saturday, Do you want to go to the tense, the subjunctive, a n d the im-
movies?) and allows students to demonstrate perative.
socializing and persuasion functions. For ex- Nonverbal Features: Body language to express
ample, if, d u e to full schedules or a shared in- interest, agreement, and disagree-
terest in a particular type of activity, o n e ment.
student decides to ask another to join in an al- In this activity, the members of the class are
ready scheduled activity, h e must use his s o told that the college has received several a p
cia1 and persuasion skills to get his date for a plications for the position of Resident Assis-
particular activity to agree to have the third tant in the “French House.” Since all the
student participate. When students must turn applications are written in French, they, along
down invitations because they d o not enjoy with several of the college’s French profes-
an activity, there is often much heated discus- sors, have been chosen to b e o n the hiring
sion as they try to find some activity they both committee for this position because of their
enjoy, or as one tries to convince the other to ability to read and speak French. Their task is
reconsider his refusal. In addition, students to read the job description, review the appli-
tend to get involved in the task, often forget- cations of six candidates from several French-
ting that it is only a n imaginary situation, and speaking countries, and then select the best
in order not to hurt the other person’s feelings candidate. They are also told that only o n e
they go to great lengths to explain why they candidate may be chosen and the group’s d e
are not free and to try to find some time when cision must be agreed on by a three-fourths’
they can meet. As a n important result, they majority. To encourage students to explore
pass from sentence to discourselevel speech. feelings and attitudes that d o not necessarily
Ten minutes before the end of the task, stu- reflect their own, half of the students are des-
dents are told that they have just found out ignated to be faculty members a n d to ap-
that they have a n important exam in o n e of proach the hiring process from this
their courses on Friday that will require a great perspective. In addition, when evaluating the
amount of preparation. They will have time to candidates, not only should their attitudes
participate in only o n e nonacademic activity and priorities be those of the group to which
on Thursday and Friday. They must, then, de- they belong, but their speech and demeanor
cide which activity they would most enjoy, should reflect the differences in age and so-
and politely cancel all their other dates o n cial roles among the members. Participants
those days. Since each student can only have are divided into groups of four or five, “stu-
one activity during the same tweday period, dents” and “teachers” are initially separated,
not only must they cancel appointments with and each group must choose a candidate and
others, but they must also convince the stu- b e ready to justify that choice. The applica-
dent with whom they have the date to partici- tions have been designed so that there is no
pate in the o n e activity they want to perfect candidate, each having strengths and
keep-that h e should not cancel that appoint- weaknesses.s Participants are given 15 min-
ment. utes to select their candidate, and the small-

168
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS--SUMMER 1994

group discussions are videotaped. At the end students evaluate the candidates from two dis-
of this period, the whole class gets together tinct points of view-that of teacher and stu-
and each group presents arguments in favor dent-students present perspectives that d o
of its candidate. This portion of the discussion not necessarily reflect their own personal
is not taped to avoid putting students on the opinion, and thus are encouraged to develop
spot or to have them “compete” to see who critical thinking and empathy by exploring
can speak the most. All the participants then and defending attitudes and feelings different
vote for o n e candidate. Because there is no from their own. Finally, this situation is reflec-
clear-cut “best”choice among the applicants, tive of real-world decision-making, where
there is usually n o consensus at this point and, most often there is no perfect candidate for a
based on the strength of the various groups’ job nor a perfect solution to any problem, and
arguments, quite a few committee members where individuals approach decisions from
change their minds about which candidate to various perspectives and values. Here, as in
vote for. After the voting, participants are real life, solutions are reached and decisions
again put in small groups and told to come up made by compromise, negotiation, empathy,
with additional reasons why the other mem- and communication.
bers of the hiring committee should support Several criteria were used in selecting the
their candidate, and reasons why they should two tasks described above. First, they had to
not vote for the others. This time, however, be able to generate grammatical, sociolinguis-
participants d o not return to their original tic, discourse, and strategic performance, as
group, but form new groups made up of those well as Morrow’s (1979) characteristics of real
who support the same candidate, whether the life communication-interaction, unpre-
group members be “teachers”or “students.”In dictability, purpose, authentic language, and
the new groups, participants must neverthe context. In addition, tasks that conformed to
less still evaluate the candidates from the per- Terry’s (1986) description of “creative testing”
spective of their role as teacher or student. A were selected (521-6). As a result, although
second round of full class discussion follows, they were chosen in the hope of eliciting cer-
and a final vote is taken. As in the first seg- tain features, they are, nevertheless, open-
ment of the exam, only small group discus- ended, with n o o n e “right” or “wrong”
sions are videotaped. If there is still much response that students must provide.bConse
disagreement after the second vote, the hiring quently, students c a n perform at their own
committee is told that a candidate can be s e level, tailoring their speech to be more or less
lected by simple majority to avoid a deadlock. complex, and avoiding structures and vocab-
This task was chosen for a variety of rea- ulary they d o not know. The focus of creative
sons. First, in discussing the background of testing, then, is o n what students know and
the candidates and the job description, stu- c a n actually do, not on what they did not
dents can display their ability both to ex- learn or may have forgotten (Terry 1986,524).
change factual knowledge and express Furthermore, a strong central theme that p r o
intellectual opinions. Second, since at most vides a context and calls for repeated similar
colleges and universities students live in interactions ensures that even the weakest stu-
dorms and, consequently, have daily contact dents can complete the assigned task without
with Resident Assistants, they have a good feeling frustrated or overwhelmed. In fact, the
knowledge of what the job involves and repetition built into the task allows weaker stu-
strong (and often divergent) opinions about dents to gain confidence a s the exam pro-
what constitutes a “good” or “bad” assistant. gresses, and provides them with the oppor-
As a result, students also have the opportunity tunity to learn through exposure to stronger
to display their command of communicative students’ outputs as sources of vocabulary,
functions such as persuading, and expressing structures, and strategies that they can subse
emotions and values. Furthermore, by having quently use in order to complete the task suc-

169
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SUMMER 1994

cessfully. At the same time, there is enough 353). As she points out, the advantage of this
unpredictability and room for elaboration type of score sheet is that the relative weights
within the central theme that the task is chal- of components to b e evaluated c a n b e ad-
lenging and interesting for even the stronger justed to reflect teaching priorities and stu-
students. dent proficiency levels. For example, if the
This method also provides students with a students are to be tested on a unit that stresses
valuable learning experience in strategic be- particular vocabulary items o r structures,
havior, an essential skill for independent, real- these items can be weighted more heavily to
world communication. For example, by reflect this emphasis. In beginning classes, in-
choosing to avoid structures o r vocabulary structors may want to eliminate the category
about which they feel less confident, students “fluency,”and in a n advanced class put more
are actually getting practice in circumlocu- weight on sociolinguistic features (see Appen-
tion and paraphrasing. Learning to use an- dix).
other speaker’s input as a source for one’s As mentioned above, I videotape each stu-
own subsequent output is also an example of dent at at least three different points during
effective strategic behavior. In addition, here, the exam, each time speaking with a different
as in the pre-exam analysis of student video- classmate. This procedure helps to increase
tapes, through their interactions with class- the accuracy of assessment in several ways.
mates, students see that there is often more First, it largely counters the concern that
than one correct way to say something. This stronger students may be penalized when
knowledge shows them the validity of a vari- paired with students of lesser ability. By
ety of approaches to the same situation and al- choosing tasks that allow students to interact
leviates much of the fear of having everything with many others during the testing period,
they say judged as “right” or “wrong.” More- the instructor has the opportunity to evaluate
over, since the open-ended nature of the students while they are speaking with partners
exam ensures that students have a great deal of various skill levels. Second, it avoids the
of independence in deciding how to carry out “one chance to get it right” aspect of many
the assigned task, they gain confidence in oral testing formats that students find to b e
their ability to communicate in the foreign particularly anxiety-provoking. Because they
language without being dependent o n the are all interacting at the same time, students
teacher to help them. feel less self-conscious and are better able to
concentrate on the task, not on their grade, a s
Assessment and Follow-up suring that they will be able to perform at their
To ensure ample student samples, the in- best and will provide closer-to-natural speech
structor should allot 50 minutes to test a class samples than in most role-play or skit scenar-
of approximately 25 students. Even in small ios. Third, in real life it is rare that an individ-
classes, where testing could be d o n e in a ual has only o n e opportunity to understand
shorter period of time, I often let the test take others or to make himself understood. Rather,
up the entire hour-at the student’ request: even as native speakers of a language, w e
they find the tasks interesting because, at the must often rephrase or repeat statements sev-
more elementary level, they lead students into eral times to make ourselves understood, and,
discussions of their various teachers, classes, in turn, w e must often ask others for clarifica-
dormitory roommates, accommodations, up- tion of what they are trying to convey. By tap-
coming concerts, sporting events, etc., and at ing students performing similar tasks at
more advanced levels they provide values various points during the exam, w e are in
and priorities to explore. essence giving them the same opportunities to
To grade the oral tests I use a score sheet rephrase, repeat, and ask for clarification that
adapted from the one described in Omaggio’s occur in real-world discourse.
(1 986) Teaching Language in Context (345- The studentktudent format, in which the

170
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE A N N A L S 4 U M M E R 1994

teacher is merely an observer, also addresses tape a high number of conversations during
concerns that educators have raised regarding the testing period. With larger classes and
1) the teacher’s ability to evaluate impartially more advanced students, small group activi-
and accurately oral exams in which they must ties are more appropriate. Small group tasks,
also actively participate; and 2) teacher- where students are in different areas of the
student exams that inhibit student initiative classroom, help ensure sound quality. Fur-
and natural discourse. Furthermore, as a non- thermore, since there are four or so students
participant the teacher cannot tailor questions per group, the instructor can spend more time
to fit expectations of individual students, and with each and film more lengthy inter-
thus a relatively uncontaminated sample changes.
of student communicative competency is Student evaluations of oral testing proce-
obtained. dures in my classes indicate that students
The videotaped communicative task format overwhelmingly find this type of testing to be
for oral exams also offers advantages from a 1) a fair and accurate means to evaluate oral
practical standpoint. First, the exam takes prochievement; 2) less anxiety-provoking
only 50 minutes to administer. In addition, the than interview, language lab, role-playing,
instructor does not have the pressure to for- and skit formats; 3) enjoyable: and 4) a posi-
mulate a grade immediately since the video- tive learning experience.
tape c a n be viewed later. Moreover, this
video, unlike audiotaped or video recordings Conclusions
of many ten-minute individual or small-group This testing method may not be the defini-
interviews o r role-plays, can be replayed in tive answer to all oral testing needs or situa-
only 50 minutes and allows teachers to ob- tions. My experience, however, is that it does
serve nonverbal communication as well. Even away with many of the drawbacks inherent in
if the teacher needs to view the video several many classroom testing modes. The nature of
times to arrive at a grade for each student, the the tasks allows teachers to observe both stu-
total time needed to both administer and eval- dents’ global proficiency and their mastery of
uate the oral exam rarely takes over three specific course materials. This testing format is
hours, in fact much less time than teachers also helpful in improving accuracy of assess-
often spend correcting written exams. Finally, ment. Because it takes less time to administer
the video also provides an excellent resource and grade, teachers can test frequently, thus
for giving students concrete suggestions about ensuring larger samples of student input and
how to improve their oral skills and for pro- fewer assessment errors d u e to teacher fa-
viding feedback when students have ques- tigue. Further accuracy is ensured since the
tions about their grades or performance. teacher is only a n observer in the testing
Videotaped exams, like the preexam videos, process, not a participant, and, as such, is less
are also valuable sources for teaching and likely to influence student performance. The
learning activities both in class and in the lan- videotape of the exam provides the teacher
guage laboratoy. with a n accurate basis for evaluating student
It should be pointed out that, depending on linguistic and extralinguistic performance.
class size, the total number of minutes each The student p r e and posttesting analyses of
student is filmed is less than in some other test- videotapes, the nonthreatening format for the
ing formats. This drawback, however, is com- videotaped activities, and the openended na-
pensated for by the frequency of testing that ture of the tasks, encourage students to give
task-based activities permit. I have found that their best performances and ensure that even
pair activities work best with beginning stu- the weakest students will find oral tests to be
dents, and since tasks for these students gen- both a n enjoyable experience and an integral
erally require short interchanges, they change part of the learning process. Finally, and per-
partners often. As a result, the instructor can haps most importantly, by giving students a

171
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALSAUMMER 1994

great deal of independence and regular prac- b e given a blank sheet and asked to fill in their ac-
tice in solving real-world communicative tual school schedule to use as a basis for the task.
tasks, they acquire the confidence and strate ”To ensure the audio quality of the recording,
gic tools necessary to approach the wide vari- students must b e dispersed throughout the class-
ety of circumstances they may encounter in room and not bunched together. If the classroom is
real-world communication. small or there is a large number of students, teach-
ers may want to try to find a larger area for the test-
NOTES ing o r modify the activity so that students make
‘For example, the Natural Approach (Krashen dates while seated in small groups that are several
1982; Terrell 1977, 1982), Total Physical Response feet apart. Students can rotate to different groups at
(Asher et al. 1974), Cooperative Learning (Curran five- to ten-minute intervals.
1976), the Capretz method (Capretz 1987), profi- ‘In designing this activity, I was fortunate to have
ciency-based approaches (Omaggio 1986), strate- had as a resource some fictitious applications that
gic interaction (Di Pietro 1987), and communica- had been prepared for use in the actual interview-
tive task-based approaches (Nunan 1989). ing process of Resident Assistants at the college
‘See, for example, Cicogna, Danesi, and Molli- where I teach. I shortened, translated, and cultur-
ca’s (1992) Problem Soloing in Second-Language ally adapted these applications for this activity.
Teaching, Di Pietro’s (1 987) Strategic Interaction: Without this resource, the activity would probably
Learning Languages Through Scenarios, Hodgson have taken two hours to prepare. To reduce prepa-
and Richard’s (1966) Improoisation, Klippel’s ration time, students could b e asked to make up
(1992) Keep Talking, Maley and Duff’s (1979) similar applications as a class or homework assign-
Drama Techniques in Language Learning, Nunan’s ment. Tasks that are no longer to b e used for oral
(1 989) Designing Tasks for the Communicative testing can still b e recycled for use as classroom ac-
Classroom, Oller and Richard-Amato’s (1983) Meth- tivities.
ods That Work: A Smorgasbord of Ideas for Lan- “An additional advantage to “creative testing” is
guage Teachers, Spolin’s (1983) Improvisation for that the same activities can be used for testing pur-
the Theater,and Ur’s (1981) Discussions That Work. poses several times due to the unpredictability and
My experience has been that students enjoy think- open-ended nature of the tasks.
ing up tasks for oral testing, and having them d o so
not only reduces teacher preparation time, but at REFERENCES
the same time increases student learning and in- Asher, James J., JoAnne Kusudo, and Rita d e la
volvement in the testing process. Successful stu- Torre. 1974. “Learning a Second Language
dent-designed tasks have included modified through Commands: The Second Field Test.”
versions of The Dating Game, Alibi, and I’oe Got a The Modern Language Journal 58: 24-32.
Secret, as well as simulated jobktudy abroad inter- Baker, Linda, and Ann L. Brown. 1984. “Metacogni-
views, tasks requiring students to rank priorities, tive Skills and Reading.” Handbook of Reading
and activities asking students to reconstruct stories Research, edited by P. D. Pearson. New York:
by obtaining information from classmates. In d e Longman, 35394.
signing tasks, students are told that the activities Bledsoe, Penelope. 1992. “Performance and Evalu-
must b e open-ended and allow evetyone to partic- ation of Communicative Tasks: The Video Cam-
ipate in small groups or in pairs. era in the L2 Classroom.” Hispania 75,2: 437440.
>Theseschedules can b e made up easily using a Brown, Ann L., J. D. Bransford, R. Ferrara, and J. C.
computer, and information o n them c a n b e re- Campione. 1983. “Learning, Remembering, and
arranged o r changed from semester to semester Understanding. ” Handbook of Child Psychology,
quite quickly. The initial preparation time for a edited by Paul H. Mussen, 4th ed. Vol 3, 77-166.
class of 25 was approximately one-and-one-half New York: John Wiley and Sons.
hours. In subsequent semesters, depending on the Capretz, Pierre J. 1987. French in Action. New
number of changes made, preparation time took as Haven: Yale University Press.
little as 30 minutes. Ur (1981) suggests that students Chamot, Anna Uhl, and Lisa Kupper. 1989. “Learn-

172
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNMS-SUMMER 1994

ing Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction.” bridge University Press.

Foreign Language Annals 22,l: 13-24. Mitchell, Rosamond. 1985. “The Use of Role Play
Cicogna, Caterina, Marcel Danesi, and Anthony Tasks in Assessing FL Communicative Perfor-
Mollica. 1992. Problem Soloing in Second-Lan- mance.” British Journal of Language Teaching
guage Teaching. Lewiston, N Y editions Soleil. 23,3: 169-172.
Curran, Charles. Counselling-Learning in Second Morrow, K. E., 1979. “Communicative Language
Languages. 1976. Apple River Press. Testing: Revolution or Evolution?” In The Com-
Di Pietro, Robert. 1987. Strategic Interaction: Leam- municative Approach to Language Teaching,
ing languages through scenarios. Cambridge: edited by C. Brumfit & K. Johnson. London: Ox-
Cambridge University Press. ford Univ. Press.
Evans, Colin, Jean-Marie Gaudin, a n d Florence Newsham, Gwen S. 1989. “Communicative Testing
Raveau. 1987. “Testing Advanced Communica- and Classroom Teaching.” The Canadian Mod-
tive Competence Through Role-play.” The British ern Language Review 45,2: 339344.
Journal of Language Teaching 25,2: 104-8. ’ Nunan, David. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Com-
Haggstrom, Margaret. 1992. “A Performance A p municative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
proach to the Study of Theater.” The French Re- University Press.
oiew 66,l: 7-19. Oller, John W., Jr. and Patricia A. Richard-Amato,
Hodgson, John, and Ernest Richards. 1966. Impro- eds. 1983. Methods That Work:A Smorgasbord of
visation. New York Grove Press. Ideas for Language Teachers. Rowley, MA: New-
Homstad, Alice. 1986. “El Interprete: A Pair Activity bury House.
t o Promote Communicative Competence in Omaggio, Alice C. 1986. Teaching Language in Con-
Spanish.” Foreign Language Annals 19,4: 289- text. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
297. Orban, Clara, and Alice Musick McLean. 1990. “A
Horwitz, Elaine K., Michael B. Horwitz, and Jo Ann Working Model for Videocamera Use in the For-
Cope. 1986. “Foreign Language Classroom Anxi- eign Language Classroom.” The French Reoiew
ety.” TheModern Language Journal 70,2: 125-132. 63,4: 652-663.
. 1991. “Foreign Language Classroom Pelletier, Raymond J. 1990. “PromptingSpontaneity
Anxiety.” In From Theory and Research to Class- by Means of the Video Camera in the Beginning
room Implications, edited by Elaine K. Horwitz Foreign Language Class.” Foreign Language An-
and Dolly J. Young, 27-36. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: nals 22,3: 227-233.
Prentice Hall. Price, Mary Lou. 1991. “The Subjective Experience
Klippel, Friederike. 1992. Keep Talking: Commu- of Foreign Language Anxiety: Interviews with
nicatioe Fluency Actioities for Language Teach- Highly Anxious Students.” In Language Anxiety:
ing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. From Theory and Research to Classroom Impli-
Krashen, Stephen. 1982. Pnnciples and Practice in cations, edited by Elaine K. Horwitz and Dolly J.
Second Language Acquisition. New York: Perga- Young, 101-108. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
mon Press. Hall.
Larson, Jerry W. 1984. “Testing Speaking Ability in Raffaldini, Tina. 1988. “The Use of Situation Tests as
the Classroom: The Semi-direct Alternative.” For- Measures of Communicative Ability.” Studies in
eign Language Annals: 499-507. Second Language Acquisition 10,2: 197-216.
Maclntyre, Peter D., and R. C. Gardner. 1989. “Anx- Savignon, Sandra J. 1991. “Communicative Lan-
iety and Second-Language Learning: Toward a guage Teaching: State of the Art.” TESOL Quar-
Theoretical Clarification.” Language Learning terly 25,2: 261-277.
39,2: 251-75. Shohamy, Elana. 1990,“LanguageTesting Priorities:
. 1991. “Investigating Language Class A Different Perspective.” Foreign Language An-
Anxiety Using the Focused Essay Technique.“ nals 23,5:385-394.
The Modern Language Journal 75,3: 296-304. Spolin, Viola. 1983. Improvisation for the Theater.
Maley, Alan, and Alan Duff. 1979. Drama Tech- Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP.
niques in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cam- Swaffar, Janet. 1989. “Curricular Issues and Lan-

173
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS4UMMER 1994

guage Research: The Shifting Interaction.” Pro- Van Lier, Leo. 1989. “Reeling, Writhing, Drawling,
fession:32-38. Stretching, and Fainting in Coils: Oral Profi-
Swain, Merrill. 1984. “Teaching and Testing Com- ciency interviews as Conversation.” TESOL Quar-
municatively.” TESL Talk 15,l-2: 7-18. terly 23,3: 489-508.
Terrell, Tracy D. 1977. “A Natural Approach to Sec- Ward, Thomas. n.d. “Communicating Electroni-
ond Language Acquisition and Learning.” The cally: Student-Centered Activities for the Lan-
Modem Language Journal 6 1: 325-37. guage Learning Center. In 7be Foreign Language
. 1982. “The Natural Approach to Lan- Classroom:Bridging Theory and Practice, edited
guage Teaching: An Update.” The Modem Lun- by Margaret A. Haggstrom, Leslie Z. Morgan, and
guage Journal 66: 121-32. Joseph Wieczoreck. New York: Garland Press.
Terry, Robert M. 1986. “Testing the Productive Forthcoming.
Skills: A Creative Focus for Hybrid Achievement Wesche, Marjorie Bingham. 1983. “Communicative
Tests.’’ Foreign Language Annals 19,4: 521-527. Testing in a Second Language.“ 7he Modem Lan-
Thompson, Irene. 1987. “Memory in Language ’ guage Journal 67,l: 41-55.
Learning.’’ In Learner Strategies, edited by Anita Young, Dolly. 1990. “An Investigation of Student
Wenden and Joan Rubin, 43-56. London: Pren- Perspectives on Anxiety and Speaking.“ Foreign
tice Hall. Language Annals 23,6: 540-553.
Ur, Penny. 1981. Discussions that Work. Cambridge: . 1992. “Language Anxiety from the For-
Cambridge University Press. eign Language Specialist’s Perspective: Omaggio
Valdman, Albert. 1988. Introduction. Studies in Sec- Hadley, Terrell, and Rardin.” Foreign Language
ond Language Acquisition 10: 121-8. Annals 25,2: 157-172.

174
 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SUMMER 1994

APPENDIX

Sample Testing Score Sheets

First Year

1 STRUCTURES 1 2 3 4 5 x 5 = !E
2. VOCABULARY 1 2 3 4 5 x 5 = La
(Including thematic and functional items)

3. STRATEGlC BEHAVIOR 1 2 3 4 5 x3= fi

(For example, circumlocution,
asking for repetition, miming, risk taking, etc.)

4. SOCIAL AND INTERPERSONAL 1 2 3 4 5 x3= L15

(Using appropriate nonverbal gestures, forms
of address and register, etc.)

5. ACCOMPLISHING TASK 1 2 3 4 5 x5= 125

(Ability to communicate and be understood
sufficiently to accomplish task)
TEST SCORE -
- 11M!

Second Year Advanced

1. STRUCTURES 1 2 3 4 5 x4= 124

2. VOCABULARY 1 2 3 4 5 x4= La
(Including thematic and functional items)

3. STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR 1 2 3 4 5 x4= 1211

(For example, circumlocution, asking for repetition,
miming, risk-taking, etc.)

4. SOCIAL AND INTERPERSONAL 1 2 3 4 5 x 4 = EQ

(Using appropriate nonverbal gestures,
forms of address and register, etc.)

5. FLUENCY 1 2 3 4 5 x4= 12n

(Halting speechhatural speech)
TEST SCORE -- LUM

175