Las tareas de comunicación oral en la evaluación del inglés: el uso de conectores

Marcos Peñate Cabrera

doi:10.4995/rlyla.2015.2800

Authors

Marcos Peñate Cabrera Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2015.2800

Keywords:

foreign languages, evaluation, oral expression, achievement control

Abstract

Although assessment experts have been researching the relationship between the different types of tasks and their level of difficulty, this process of analysis should be pursued further in order to acquire a more accurate vision of the variables involved. In this article we study the three types of tasks most frequently used in the different models of oral exams (one-to-one interview based on a photo, one-to-one interview based on a comic strip and a dialogue in pairs). In order to carry out this study we assessed 244 pupils from the second year of Bachillerato belonging to nine different schools and having an A2 level of English. When contrasting the 3 types of tasks, our aim was to analyse the amount and complexity of the oral production, namely the use of linkers, by means of statistical tests of homogeneity and specificity.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Marcos Peñate Cabrera, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Titular de universidad

References

Arnaiz, P. y Peñate, M. (2004). "El papel de la producción oral (output) en el proceso de aprendizaje de una lengua extranjera (LE)". Porta Linguarum, 1, 37-59. http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/articles-index.htm

Arnaiz, P, Peñate, M. y Bazo, P. (2010). “El efecto de la planificación en la expresión oral de alumnos de primaria”. Porta Linguarum, 14, 181-195. http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/articulos/articles-index.htm

Arnaiz, P. y Pérez-Luzardo, J. (2014). “Anxiety in Spanish EFL university lessons: causes, responsability attribution and coping”. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 49/1, 57-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/stap-2014-0003

Brooks, L. (2009). “Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance”. Language Testing, 26/3, 341-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104666

Davis, L. (2009). “The influence of interlocutor proficiency in a paired oral assessment”. Language Testing, 26/3, 367-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104667

Együd, G. y Glover, P. (2001). “Oral testing in pairs – a secondary school perspective”. ELT Journal, 55/1, 70-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.1.70

Elder, C., Iwashita, N. y McNamara, T. (2002). “Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks: what does the test-taker have to offer?” Language Testing, 19/4, 347-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt235oa

Ellis, R. (2009). “The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production”. Applied Linguistics, 30/4, 474-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp042

Fillmore, C. (1979). “On fluency”, en C. Fillmore (ed). Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behaviour. Nueva York, Academic Press, 85-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-255950-1.50012-3

Foot, M. (1999). “Relaxing in pairs”. ELT Journal, 53/1, 36-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.1.36

Guerrero Martín, J.L. (2001). FreconWin (frecuencias y contextos). Programa informático.

Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Izumi, S. (2003). “Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: in search of the psycholinguistic rationale of the output hypothesis”. Applied Linguistics, 24/2, 168-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.168

McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. Londres: Longman.

Norton, J. (2005). “The paired format in the Cambridge Speaking Test”. ELT Journal, 59/4, 287-297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci057

Ortega, L. (1999). “Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21/1, 108-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0272263199001047

Ross, S. y Berwick, R. (1992). “The Discourse of accommodation in oral proficiency interviews”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14/2, 159-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100010809

Saville, N. y Hargreaves, P. (1999). “Assessing speaking in the revised FCE”. ELT Journal, 53/1, 42-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.1.42

Scarcella, R. y Oxford, R. (1992). The Tapestry of Language Learning. Boston, Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Skehan, P. y Foster, P. (1999). “The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings”. Language Learning, 49/1, 93-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00071

Stoynof, S. (2012). “Looking backward and forward at classroom-based language assessment”. ELT Journal, 66/4, 523-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs041

Swain, M. (1985). “Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development”, en S. Gass y C. G. Madden, (ed). Input and Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Newbury House, 235-256.

Swain, M. (1995). “Three functions of output in second language learning”, en G. Cook y B. Seidlhofer, (eds.). Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 125-144.

Swain, M. y Lapkin, S. (1995). “Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: a step towards second language learning”. Applied Linguistics, 16/3, 371-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371

Taylor, L. (2001). “The paired speaking test format: recent Studies”. University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations Research Notes, 6, 15-17.

Wagner-Gough, K. y Hatch, E. (1975). “The importance of input in second language acquisition studies”. Language Learning, 25/2, 297-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1975.tb00248.x

Young, R. y Milanovic, M. (1992). “Discourse variation in oral proficiency interviews”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14/4, 403-424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011207