Knowing Your Roots: Enhancing Oral Proficiency of Elementary Students in Kurdistan Using Oral Presentation as an Alternative Assessment in the ‘Family Tree’ Task
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32890/pr2022.4.3Keywords:
Oral Presentations, Family-Tree Task, Rubrics, Communication SkillsAbstract
This paper aims at presenting the specifics of designing oral presentations as an alternative assessment for elementary students
in Kurdistan. Being non-native speakers of English, oral proficiency is an increasingly significant aspect of language teaching among
young Kurdish learners. Thus, the purpose of oral presentation in the ‘Family Tree’ task is to build students’ confidence in speaking
a foreign language (English language) among young non-native speakers in a creative and comfortable learning environment. It also increases communication among students and the teacher by encouraging students to easily share what they have learned in class.
However, previous research has criticized oral examinations for lack of reliability and validity. Consequently, the current research seeks to design a reliable and valid alternative assessment by incorporating the Family Tree task into an oral presentation. To measure students’ oral communication skills, a “Task-Specific” scoring rubric was designed to evaluate students’ performances with four essential dimensions; (1) Vocabulary, (2) Pronunciation, (3) Task, and (4) Fluency. Data were obtained from two elementary classes of a public school located in Dohuk in Kurdistan among 13 boys and 14 girls. The student consists of fourth and fifth-grade students within the range of 9 to 10 years old. The result shows that assessing students using the oral presentation as an alternative assessment escalates students’ confidence and motivation to speak publicly as the examination setting becomes less threatening and that oral presentation using a rubric allows detailed identification of students’ areas of improvement for elementary school students.
References
Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational leadership, 57(5), 13-19.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
Bhati, S. S. (2012). The Effectiveness of Oral Presentation Assessment in a Finance Subject: An Empirical Examination. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9(2), 6.
Chiedu, R. E., & Omenogor, H. D. (2014). The concept of reliability in language testing: issues and solutions. Journal of Resourcefulness and Distinction, 8(1), 1-9.
Davis, M. H., & Karunathilake, I. (2005). The place of the oral examination in today’s assessment systems. Medical teacher, 27(4), 294-297.
Gan, Z., Oon, E. P. T., & Davison, C. (2017). ESL students’ oral performance in English language school-based assessment: results of an empirical study. Language Testing in Asia, 7(1), 1-21.
Haladyna, T. M., & Rogriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. New York: Routledge.
Jolly, B., & Grant, J. (1997). The good assessment guide: a practical guide to assessment and appraisal for higher specialist training. Milton Keynes: Open University Centre for Education in Medicine. Practitioner Research, 4, July 2022 pp: 35-
Joughin, G. (2010). A short guide to oral assessment. Leeds Met Press in association with University of Wollongong.
Memon, M. A., Joughin, G. R., & Memon, B. (2010). Oral assessment and postgraduate medical examinations: establishing conditions for validity, reliability and fairness. Advances in health sciences education, 15(2), 277-289.
Montgomery, K. (2000). Classroom rubrics: Systematizing what teachers do naturally. The clearing house, 73(6), 324-328.
Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: what, when, how? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7, 1–7.
Mustafa, F., & Raisha, S. (2021). Rubric for Assessment of Learning Process in EFL Online Classrooms: Validation and Revision. MEXTESOL Journal, 45(3), 1-15.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 239-250.
Riddle, E. J., & Smith, M. (2008). Developing and using rubrics in quantitative business courses. The Coastal Business Journal, 7(1), 82–95.
Salehi, M., & Daryabar, B. (2014). Self-and peer assessment of oral presentations: Investigating correlations and attitudes. English for Specific Purposes World, 15(42), 1-12.
Stevens, D. D., & Levi, A. J. (2013). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning. Stylus Publishing, LLC. Oral Presentation Rubric Student name: Class: Date: Time: Excellent Good Fair Needs Improvement Mark Vocabulary Family vocabulary Family vocabulary Family vocabulary Family vocabulary is Excellent 9-10 1 used in a correct and is used but not fewused with Poor Good 6-8 2 appropriate way mistakes to describe limitation Fair 3-5 3 them in the context Needs 0-2 4 Improvement Pronunciation Student’ Student have few Student have few Student have poor Excellent 9-10 1 pronunciation is clear pronunciation pronunciation and pronunciation and Good 6-8 2 with appropriate mistakes with good communication misunderstand of the Fair 3-5 3 communication communication mistakes meaning of the words Needs 0-2 4 Improvement Task Student is fully Student is Student makes an Student does not Excellent 9-10 1 understanding the understanding the effort to complete complete the task Good 6-8 2 task and complete it task and complete it the task Fair 3-5 3 perfectly in a good way Needs 0-2 4 Practitioner Research, 4, July 2022 pp: 35-Improvement Fluency Student demonstrate Student demonstrate Student Student demonstrate Excellent 9-10 1 excellent degree of good degree of demonstrate ability poor ability to speak Good 6-8 2 fluency by having fluency by have clear to speak but with Fair 3-5 3 clear idea that is not idea with a little confusion Needs 0-2 4 difficult to follow hesitation to speak Improvement
