17
role plays can be performed from prepared scripts, created from a set of prompts and expressions, or written using and consolidating knowledge gained from
instruction or discussion of the speech act and its variations prior to the role plays themselves. Because socio cultural factors are so crucial in the production of
speech acts, it is suggested that discourse rating tasks, in which students rate dialogues or scenarios on various continua of formality and the like, can raise
awareness about language and can help transfer this knowledge to production activities such as role plays. For example, when teaching a unit on complaints,
one assignment might be to have students go to places where complaints might be common. There, they can listen carefully for how complaints are stated and
responded to.
18
Role play is not just train students to act to be someone, but it trains students to use the target language in some contexts in where in other
activities it might not be given.
5.5.Simulation Simulations are very similar to role-plays but what makes simulations
different than role plays is that they are more elaborate. Simulation is really large scale role play. In simulations, students can bring items to the class to create a
realistic environment. For instance, if a student is acting as a singer, she brings a microphone to sing and so on. Role plays and simulations have many advantages.
First, since they are entertaining, they motivate the students. Second, they increase the self-confidence of hesitant students. In role play and simulation activities,
students will have a different role and they do not speak for themselves, which means they do not have to take the same responsibility.
19
5.6.Conversation
17
Penny Ur, A course in Language Teaching; Practice and Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 131
18
Marianne Celce-Murcia, ed., Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, Boston: HeinleHeinle, 2001, p. 107
19
Hayriyekayi, Teaching Speaking; Activities to Promote Speaking in a Second Language,
http:iteslj.orgTechniquesKayi-TeachingSpeaking.html, Accessed on October 9, 2013
One of the more recent trends in oral skills pedagogy is the emphasis on having students analyze and evaluate the language that they or others produce. In
other words, it is not adequate to have students produce lots of language; they must become more metalinguistically aware of the many features of language in
order to become competent speakers and interlocutors in English. One speaking activity which is particularly suited to this kind of analysis is conversation, the
most fundamental form of oral communication.
20
One way to this activity is to assign students to find a native speaker or near native speaker they know and
arrange to tape-record a 20-30 minute interaction with this person. Of course, not all of the discourse that results from this encounter
will be truly “natural conversation”, the native speaker may fall into the role of “interviewer” and ask
all the questions while the non-native speaker merely responds; therefore, the instructor may want to encourage the learner beforehand to come up with a few
questions to ask the native speaker. In any case, the resulting interaction will provide a sample of spontaneous production from and for the learner to analyze.
In a variation of the conversation assignment, learners are required to tape-record an interview with native speaker on a topic of their choice and then report the
result to the class.
6. The Assessment of Speaking
Assessing Speaking can be poses many problems. It can be very time consuming-a nightmare with a big test where thousands of learners have to be
tested quickly. Also there are the many different levels on which performance has to be assessed. There are difficulties involved in marking objectively with face-to-
face contact. As Hughes in Johnson said that it is obvious that scorers should not be influenced by such features as candidates‟ pleasantness, prettiness, or the cut of
their dress.
21
Even though Speaking is difficult to be assessed, but it does not mean that speaking is not possible to be assessed. Scrivener in his book mentions the tasks
20
Marianne Celce-Murcia, ed., op. cit., p. 108
21
Keith Johnson, An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching, Edinburg: Pearson Education Limited, 2008, Second Edition, p. 319
that can be used to assess speaking. they are; for example, narrating a picture story, practicing a role-play, pair work information-gap exchanges, discussion,
etc. if there is enough time to conduct the speaking assessment, then a „three learners with
one teacher‟ activity is very good to assess, setting a task that gets the three learners to interact together while teachers watch and evaluate.
22
Pair work information-gap exchanges is the technique that will be used by the writer to assess speaking ability of the students. In pair work information-gap
exchanges, two students may be asked to find the differences in two very similar pictures, to describe and draw, that is learner A describe the original picture, while
learner B draw the picture, to use the target language to shareexchanges information where jigsaw materials is used as the task, etc. This activity is
communication based, where it requires learner to use the information they get from each other in a collaborative way for successful completion of a particular
task. However, information-gap cannot be success if there is different level
ability between the two students, since in this activity the students will act as not only a speaker, but also a listener, therefore, two students in a pair should have the
same ability in both speaking and listening. As Heaton stated in his book “Writing English Language Test” that in many tests of oral production it is neither possible
nor desirable to separate the speaking skills from the listening skills because these two skills is interdependent, and it is impossible to hold meaningful conversation
without understanding what is being said and making oneself understood at the same time.
23
In addition, Nunan in McDonough and Shaw stated that speaking is an active process and one which is difficult to disassociate from listening in many
ways.
24
Meanwhile, in determining the rating scale used to describe the score of speaking assessment, the writer used a speaking rating system which is recognized
22
Jim Scrivener, Learning Teaching; A Guidebook for English Language Teachers, Oxford: Macmillan Publisher, 2005, p. 308
23
J. B Heaton, Writing English Language Test, Longman: Longman Group UK Limited, 1990, p. 88
24
Jo McDonough and Christopher Shaw, Materials and Methods in ELT; A Teacher’s
Guide, Oxford: Blackwell Publisher, 1993, p. 153
by Hughes. As explained by Hughes that for assessing spoken English production, teachers have to assess students‟ pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency and
comprehension. Hughes presented the sample of an oral English rating scale that used 1-6 points as follow;
25
No Criteria Rating scores
Comments
1 Pronunciation
1 below 45
Pronunciation frequently unintelligible
2 46- 56
Frequent gross errors and a very heavy accent make
understanding difficult, require frequent repetition
3 57- 66
“foreign accent” requires concentrated listening, and
mispronunciation lead to occasional
misunderstanding and apparent errors in grammar
or vocabulary 4
67- 76 Marked “foreign accent”
and occasional mispronunciations which
do not interfere with the understanding
5 77- 86
No conspicuous mispronunciations, but
would not be taken for a native speaker
6 87- 100
Native pronunciation, with
25
Arthur Hughes, Testing for Language Teachers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp. 111-112
no trace of “foreign accent” 2
Grammar 1
below 45 Grammar almost entirely
inaccurate phrases. 2
46- 56 Constant errors showing
control of very few major patterns and frequently
preventing communication. 3
57- 66 Frequent errors showing
some major patterns uncontrolled and causing
occasional irritation and misunderstanding.
4 67- 76
Occasional errors showing imperfect control of some
patterns but no weakness that causes
misunderstanding. 5
77- 86 Few errors, with no
patterns of failure 6
87- 100 No more than two errors
during the performance. 3
vocabulary 1
below 45 Vocabulary inadequate for
even the simplest conversation.
2 46- 56
Vocabulary limited to basic personal and survival areas
time, food, transportation, family, etc.
3 57- 66
Choice of words sometimes inaccurate, limitations of
