한국산학기술학회논문지 (Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society)

  • 제12권1호
  • /
  • Pages.195-199
  • /
  • 2011
  • /
  • 1975-4701(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-4688(eISSN)
한국산학기술학회 (The Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

영어 능력평가를 위한 구술시험의 다양성

The Diversity in an English Oral Proficiency Test

  • 박정열 (나사렛대학교 오웬스국제대학)
  • 투고 : 2010.11.18
  • 심사 : 2011.01.13
  • 발행 : 2011.01.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

영어 능력평가를 위한 테스트는 평가자, 과제, 인터뷰의 주제, 그리고 평가 받는 사람의 성별 등 여러 가지 이유 때문에 그 평가 결과가 아주 다양할 수 있다. 이전의 자료는 평가자가 외국어로서의 영어구술 능력 평가 결과에 아주 중요한 영향을 끼친다는 것을 증명해 왔다. 이렇게 영어 능력 구술 평가에 영향을 미치는 평가자에 대한 많은 조사는 있었지만 평가 과정에 잠재적으로 영향을 줄 수 있는 평가자의 가변성에 대한 조사는 극히 드물었다. 시험 환경이 달라지면 그에 따라 구술 평가가 달라지고 그 평가 기준은 또 완전히 달라진다. 그러므로 다양한 시험 수행 과제에 대해 똑같은 평가 기준을 적용하는 것은 적당치 않다. 즉 평가 과정에 대한 더 많은 원안 분석과 심도 있는 연구가 필요하다. 제 2외국어로서 영어 능력평가를 위한 구술시험은 보다 더 현실적이고 효율적인 장치가 만들어져야 할 것이다.

There are many causes for the variation of the result in oral proficiency test such as the examiner, the task, the theme of the interview, and the gender of the participants. Previous literature documents that the rater is an important variable influencing test scores of second language oral proficiency. Although much research in language testing has been conducted concerning rater effect on test scores, there has been little attention paid to the effect of potential rater variables in language testing on their rating process. There are noticeably different contents of the rating scales across different speaking tests developed in different context. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to apply the same rating criteria for various tasks. In conclusion, we need more subject protocol analyses and more thoughtful studies on rating processes. In other words, the oral proficiency test needs a more realistic and valid tool for the assessment of second language proficiency.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bachman, L. F., Problems in examining the validity of the ACTFL oral proficiency interview. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), pp.149-164, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100007282
  2. Bachman, L. F., Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
  3. Bachman, L. F., Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19(4), pp.452-47, 2002.
  4. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S., Language testing practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
  5. Bachman, L. F., & Savignon, S. J., The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the ACTFL Oral Interview. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), pp.380-390, 1986. https://doi.org/10.2307/326817
  6. Bonk, W. J. & Ockey, G. J., A Many-Facet Rasch Analysis of the Second Language Group Oral Discussion Task. Language Testing 20(1), pp.89-110, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt245oa
  7. Brown, A., The effect of rater variables in the development of an occupation-specific language performance test. Language Testing, 12(1), pp.1-15, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229501200101
  8. Brown, A., Iwashita N., & McNamara, T., An Examination of Rater Orientations and Test-Taker Performance on English-for-Academic-Purposes Speaking Tasks, TOEFL Monograph Series, 29, Educational Testing Service, 2005.
  9. Chalhoub-Deville, M., Deriving oral assessment scales across different tests and rater groups. Language Testing, 12, pp.16-33, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229501200102
  10. Chalhoub-Deville, M., Task-based assessments: Characteristics and validity evidence. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing, Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited, pp.210-228, 2001.
  11. Derwing, T. M., Rossiter, M. J., Munro, M. J., & Thomson, R. I., Second Language Fluency: Judgments on Different Tasks, Language Testing, 54(4), pp. 655-679, 2004.
  12. Douglas, D., Quantity and quality in speaking test performance. Language Testing. 11, pp.125-143, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229401100203
  13. Douglas, D., & Selinker, L., Analyzing oral proficiency test performance in general and specific purpose contexts. System 20, pp.317-328, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(92)90043-3
  14. Joo, M., The need for an alternative Approach to Oral Testing. The English Teachers Association in Korea, 14(1), pp.1-20, 2008.
  15. Lumley, T., Perceptions of language-trained raters and occupational experts in a test of occupational English language proficiency. English for Specific Purposes 17(4), pp.347-367, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00016-1
  16. Lumley, T., & McNamara, T. F., Rater characteristics and rater bias: Implications for training. Language Testing, 12(1), pp.54-71, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229501200104
  17. Lynch, B. K., & McNamara, T. F., Using G-theory and many-facet Rasch measurement in the development of performance assessments of the ESL speaking skills of immigrants. Language Testing 15(2), pp.158-180, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229801500202
  18. McNamara, T. F., Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
  19. O'Loughlin, K., The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing. Language Testing, 19(2), pp.169-192, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt226oa
  20. O'Sullivan, B., Learner acquaintanceship and oral proficiency test pair-task performance, Language Testing, 19, pp.277-275, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt205oa
  21. Ross, S., Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interviews, Language Testing, pp.173-186, 1992.
  22. Shohamy, E., The stability of oral proficiency assessment on the oral interview testing procedures. Language Learning, 33, pp.527-540, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00947.x
  23. Upshur, J. A., & Turner, C. E., Systematic effects in the rating of second language speaking ability: test method and learner discourse. Language Testing, 16(1), pp.82-111, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229901600105
  24. Young, R. & Milanovic, M., Discourse variation in oral proficiency interview., Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, pp.403-424, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011207
  25. Wigglesworth, G., An investigation of planning time and proficiency level on oral test discourse. Language Testing, 14, pp.85-106, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229701400105