So this was asked on a forum recently and, as usual, it got me thinking.
This is a question about “El Internado,” but, really, it applies to anything we do in a language class. We read/ask a story/do a Movietalk or Picturetalk, etc, and then we want to assess speaking, comprehension, etc.
My response to this question is don’t bother assessing speaking.
But first, a qualifier: if our Board/school/dept. etc says we absolutely MUST assess speaking, well, then, go for it. We do what we have to do to keep our job. But if we don’t have to assess speaking, don’t. Here is why.
- The info we gain from this cannot generally guide instruction, which is the point of any assessment (other than at the very end of the course). The reason for this is very simple: what will we do if what we learn from assessment varies wildly (which it almost certainly will)? If Samba has problems with the pretérito verb tense, Max doesn’t understand questions with pronouns, and Sky can fluidly ask and answer anything, how are we going to design future instruction around that info? How are we going to “customise” reading/stories, etc to give 30 different kids the input they need? Answer: we can’t.
- This takes forever. If we have 30 kids in our class, and we can assess them in three minutes each (which is tough) we are spending 90 min alone on speech assessment. That’s a period and a half! During this time, we have to design something else for them to do…and good luck having 29 kids– whose teacher is “distracted” by sitting in the corner assessing speech– staying on task for 60 minutes.
- We already know how well they speak. If we are doing regular PQA– personalised questions and answers (basically, asking the class members the same questions we are asking the actors)– we know exactly how well each kid can talk. So why waste time with a formal assessment? In my Spanish 1 right now, Ronnie can only do y/n answers to questions, while Emma Watson (aka Kauthr) speaks fluid sentences, and so does Riya, while Sadhna mixes up present and past tense in her output (but understands tense differences in questions) etc.
Indeed, this is where feedback to the teacher is useful. If—in the PQA moment—I see that Sadhna mixes up past and present in answers, I can guide PQA around that right then and there.
- In terms of bang-for-buck, we are going to get way more results from more input than from assessing speech. We acquire language not by practising talking etc, but by processing input, as Bill VanPatten endlessly reminds us. I used to do regular “speaking tests” and they did nothing and the info was useless. Now, I never test speaking until the end of the course, and the kids speak better, mostly because the wasted time now goes into input.
- A question that comes up here, regarding assessing speech post-Internado, is, what are we testing the kids on? Are they expected to remember content— names, events, “facts” etc– from the show? Or are we assessing speech generally? In my opinion, “content” should be off-limits: we are building language ability, not recall.In terms of language ability, one of the problems with assessing right after specific content (eg some of El Internado) is that, since this input is generally not very targeted, we don’t have much of a guarantee that the kids are getting enough exposure (in a period or two) to “master” or acquire anything new. This is to say, while an episode may be 90- or even 100% comprehensible, thanks to the teacher’s guidance etc, it almost does not focus on a specific vocab set. In a classic T.P.R.S. story, the teacher makes sure to restrict (shelter) vocab used in order to maximise the number of times each word/phrase/etc is used.
This is whether s/he has a plan, or, as in totally “untargeted” story creation à la Ben Slavic, the kids are totally driving the bus. As a result, the odds of the kids picking up specific “stuff” from the story—in the short term, which is the focus of the question– are greater (and greater still if the asked story is followed by reading, Movietalk and Picturetalk) than if the input is familiar but untargeted.
- What about the kid who missed some of (in this case) El Internado? If the speaking assessment focuses on Internado-specific vocab, it would (in my opinion) be unfair to ask Johnny who was there for all three periods and Maninder, who missed two of three periods, to do the same thing with the “language content” of the episodes.
- Kids hate speaking and tests. Anything I can do to avoid tests, or putting people on the spot– which a one-on-one test does– I do. This is what Johnny looks like when you tell him, speaking test tomorrow:
- “Authentic content” eg El Internado has lots of low-frequency vocabulary. Sure, the teacher can keep things comprehensible, but there is inevitably kids’ mental bandwidth going into processing low-freq vocab…which is exactly what kids don’t need in a speaking assessment, where you want high-freq vocabulary that is easy to recall and applicable to lots of topics.
Anyway…this is why I save speaking assessment until the end of the course: I know how well my kids can speak, I can adjust aural input where it matters– right now–, I don’t want assessment to detract from input, and speaking assessment doesn’t really help me or my kids.