LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT

“TESTING PRONUNCIATION”

Lecturer:

Lena Sastri, M.Pd.

Written by Group 2:

1. Irfan Septia Yunus (2322042)

2. Qotrun Nada (2322043)
3. Sintia Eti Wardani (2322046)
4. Nurtasya (2322062)
5. Enjelita (2322071)

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHING TRAINING

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY OF SJECH M. DJAMIL DJAMBEK

BUKITTINGGI

2024/2025
 PREFACE

With all the praise and thanks to God the Almigthy, who has given
Him love and mercy so that a paper entitled “Testing Pronunciation” can
we finish well. The paper is structured to meet on of the tasks of the course
Language Assessment.

On this occasion, we would like to thank profusely to all those who

have helped us in completing the writing of this paper, to Lena Sastri,
M.Pd as a lecturer in Language Assessment for the support and motivation
and also to friends who have contributed their ideas and motivation for
writing this paper.

We are fully aware that the many flaws in the writing of this paper,
in terms of material, technical and material presentation. Therefore, we
expect criticism and constructive suggestions to further refine the writing
of this paper. Finally, we hope that the writing of this paper can be
usedfull for readers.

Bukittinggi, 1st November 2024

The writer

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE .............................................................................................. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................ ii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION............................................................. 1

A. Background ......................................................................................... 1
B. Formulate of the problem .................................................................... 1
C. Purpose ............................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER II DISCUSSION .................................................................. 3

A. Testing oral production ..................................................................... 3

1. What is meant by speaking a second language .................................... 3
2. The major problem in measuring speaking ability ............................... 3
3. Types of oral production tests .............................................................. 4
4. Improving the scored interview .......................................................... 9
B. Testing oral ability ............................................................................ 9
1. Setting the tasks .................................................................................. 9
2. Criteria levels of performance ............................................................. 10
3. Obtaining valid and reliable scoring .................................................... 10
CHAPTER III CONCLUSION .............................................................. 14

A. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 14
B. Suggest ............................................................................................... 14

REFERENCES

ii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background
The assumption is made in this chapter that the objective of
teaching spoken language is the development of the ability to interact
successfully in that language, and that this involves comprehension as well
as production. It is also assumed that at the earliest stages of learning
formal testing of this ability will not be called for, informal observation
providing any diagnostic information that is needed.
The basic problem in testing oral ability is essentially the same as
for testing writing. We want to set tasks that form a representative sample
of the population of oral tasks that we expect candidates to be able to
perform. The tasks should elicit behaviour which truly represents the
candidates' ability and which can be scored validly and reliably.

B. Formulate of the problem

1. What is meant by speaking a second language?
2. What the major problem in measuring speaking ability?
3. Any types of oral production tests?
4. How to improve the scored interview?
5. How to setting the tasks?
6. What is Criteria levels of performance?
7. How to obtain valid and reliable score?

C. Purpose
1. To know meant by speaking a second language
2. To know the major problem in measuring speaking ability
3. To know types of oral production tests
4. To know improving the scored interview
5. To know setting the tasks

1
6. To know Criteria levels of performance
7. To know obtaining valid and reliable score

2
 CHAPTER II

DISCUSSION

A. Testing Oral Production

1. What is meant by speaking a second language
Like writing, speaking is a complex skill requiring the
simultaneous use of a number of different abilities which often develop at
different rates. Either four or five components are generally recognized in
analyses of the speech process:
1. Pronunciation (including the segmental features vowels and
Consonants and the stress and intonation patterns)
2. Grammar
3. Vocabulary
4. Fluency (the ease and speed of the flow of speech)
5. Comprehension

The term writing was applied to a rather formal and sophisticated

language activity not ever fully developed by many students, even in their
first language. In contrast, when we refer to a student’s skill in speaking a
second language, our fundamental concern is with his ability to
communicate informally on everyday subjects with sufficient ease and
fluency to hold the attention of his listener.

2. The major problem in measuring speaking ability

Three of the speech components grammatical structure,
vocabulary, and auditory comprehension are now being tested by reliable
and relatively simple objective techniques. It is highly probable that
performance on these tests is positively related to general ability to
converse in a foreign language, although, as will be explained directly, we
still lack very reliable criteria for testing out this assumption. General
fluency, too, is fairly easy to assess, at least in gross terms: it usually takes
only a few minutes of listening to determine whether a foreign speaker is

3
 able to approximate the speed and ease with which native speakers of the
language typically produce their utterances.
Testing speaking ability in language assessments is crucial,
especially beyond basic levels. However, accurately evaluating this skill is
challenging due to its complexity. Questions remain regarding how to
measure speaking skills, including pronunciation, and how to weigh these
components. While one can pronounce sounds accurately and still struggle
to communicate effectively, others can make mistakes yet express ideas
clearly.
3. Types of oral production tests
Most tests of oral production fall into one of the following categories:
1. Relatively unstructured interviews, rated on a carefully constructed
scale
2. Highly structured speech samples (generally recorded), rated
according to very specific criteria
3. Paper-and-pencil objective tests of pronunciation, presumably
providing indirect evidence of speaking ability

The rated interview is undoubtedly the most commonly used

technique, and the one with the longest history. Paper-and-pencil tests
of pronunciation have been used off and on for some years, generally
in combination with other types of assessment.

a. Scored Interviews
The simplest and most frequently employed method of
measuring oral proficiency is to have one or more trained raters
interview each candidate separately and record their
evaluations of his competence in the spoken language.
b. Highly Structured Speech Samples
The stimuli may be oral (provided by live voice or on tape)
or written, or both. The following item types, drawn from
foreign language tests for native speakers of English, illustrate

4
techniques which would be equally appropriate in English tests
for foreign students.
1) Sentence repetition.
The examinee hears, and then repeats, a series of
short sentences.
Scoring procedure: The rater listens to the
pronunciation of two specific pronunciation points
persentence, marking whether or not each is
pronounced in an acceptable way.
2) Reading passage.
The examinee is given several minutes to read a
passage silently, after which he is instructed to read it
aloud at normal speed and with appropriate expression.
Scoring procedure: The rater marks two or more
pronunciation points per sentence and then makes a
general evaluation of the fluency of the reading.
3) Sentence conversion.
The examinee is instructed to convert or transform
sentences in specific ways (from positive to negative,
from statement to question, from present tense to past,
etc.). The voice on the tape gives the sentences one at a
time, the examinee supplying the conversion in the
pause that follows.
Scoring procedure: The rater scores each converted
sentence on the basis of whether or not it is
grammatically acceptable.
4) Sentence construction.
The voice on the tape asks the examinee to compose
sentences appropriate to specific situations.
Scoring procedure: The rater scores each sentence on
an acceptable-unacceptable basis.

5
 1. “You are trying to find the post office in a strange city.
Ask a policeman for directions.”
2. “You have telephoned your friend Mary, but her mother
answers and tells you that Mary is not at home. Ask her
to leave a message for Mary to call you when she
comes home.”
5) Response to pictorial stimuli.
The examinee is given time to study each of a series
of pictures and then briefly describes what is going on
in each scene.
Scoring procedure: For each picture the rater gives a
separate rating of the examinee’s pronunciation,
grammar, vocabulary, and fluency, using a 4- or 5-point
scale.
c. Paper-and-Pencil Tests of Pronunciation
Characteristic item types appearing in these paper-and
pencil pronunciation tests.
1. Rhyme words. The examinee is first presented with a
test word which he is instructed to read to himself, after
which he is to select the one word from among several
alternatives which rhymes with the test word. (He is
cautioned to make his selection according to sound
rather than spelling.)
2. Word stress. The examinee is to decide which syllable
in each test word receives the heaviest stress.
3. Phrase stress. The examinee is to decide which one of
several numbered syllables in each utterance would
receive the heaviest stress.
d. Reading Aloud
Tests involving reading aloud are generally used when
it is desired to assess pronunciation as distinct from the total

6
 speaking skills. In order to construct suitable tests of reading
aloud, it is helpful to imagine actual situations in real life in
which the tested may be required to read aloud. For example,
the following instructions relate to a situation in which a
teacher or class monitor may be asked to read aloud: First put
the headset on. Make sure it is in its most comfortable position
with the headband over the centre of the head. The microphone
should be about 14 inches from the mouth. To record, put the
white switch to the position marked Work. Put the red switch to
Speak and press the red recording button, which will now light.
e. Conversational exchange
The item types range from items presenting the testees
with situations in which they initiate conversations to
incomplete conversations with the part of one speaker omitted
(i.e. a one- sided dialogue).
Type 1 The testees are given a series of situations and are required
to construct sentences on the lines of a certain pattern or group
of patterns.
Type 2 This type of test item is similar to the previous type but not
as strictly controlled.
Type 3 The students hear a stimulus to which they must respond in
any appropriate way. (This test often relies on conventional
greetings. apologies, acceptable ways of expressing polite
disagreement, etc.)
Type 4 This is similar to the previous type of item, but the stimuli
and responses form part of a longer dialogue and the situation
is thus developed.
Type 5 This item takes the form of an incomplete dialogue with
prompts (shown in brackets in the following example)
whispered in the student's ear.

7
f. Using pictures for assessing oral production
Pictures, maps and diagrams can be used in oral
production tests in similar ways to those described in the
previous chapter on testing the listening skills. Pictures of
single objects can be used for testing the production of
significant phoneme contrasts, while a picture of a scene or an
incident can be used for examining the total oral skills. This
section will concentrate on the use of pictures for description
and narration.
g. The oral interview
Supporters of the oral interview claim that the
examination at least appears to offer a realistic means of
assessing the total oral skill in a 'natural' speech situation.
Others, however, argue that the examination nevertheless is
artificial and unrealistic: students are placed aced not in natural.
real-life speech situations but in examination situations. For
example, many students adopt a quiet and colourless tone in
interviews, some even develop a guarded attitude, while others
become over-friendly.
h. Some other techniques for oral examining
1. The short talk
In certain examinations students are required to prepare a
short talk on a given topic. They may be allowed several days
or only a few minutes in which to prepare the talk and, in some
cases, they may be provided with notes or reference material.
2. Group discussion and role playing
Group discussion and role playing are two other important
techniques for assessing oral production. Through group
discussion and role playing the teacher can discover how
students are thinking and using the target language.

8
 4. Improving the scored interview
a. General Procedures
1. Decide in advance on interview methods and rating
standards.
2. Conduct the interviews in some quiet place with suitable
acoustics.
3. Reserve sufficient time for each interview.
4. Use at least two raters for each candidate.
5. Rate the candidates without reference to other test scores.
6. Record the ratings after the interview.
7. Obtain each candidate’s final score by pooling or averaging
the two (or more) ratings that have been given him.
b. Suggestions for Conducting the Interviews
1. Beginning the interview
2. Continuing the interview.
3. Concluding the interview

B. Testing oral ability

Specifying all appropriate tasks
1. Setting the tasks
a. Operations The operation is to take part in oral inter- action which
may involve the following language functions :
 Expressing : thanks, requirements, opinions, comment,
attitude, confirmation, apology, want/need, information,
complaints, reasons/justifications
 Narrating : sequence of events
 Eliciting : information, directions, service, clarification,
help, permission, (and all areas above)
 Directing : ordering, instructing (how to), persuading,
advising, warning.
 Reporting : description, comment, decisions.

9
 b. Text types dialogue and multi-participant interactions normally of
a face-to-face nature but telephone conversations not excluded.
c. Addressees and topics Not specified except as under 'Topics for
writing'.
2. Criteria levels of performance
The fact that particular grammatical structures are not
specified as content, and that there is no reference to vocabulary or
pronunciation, does not of course mean that there are no requirements
with respect to these elements of oral performance. These would be
dealt with separately as part of a statement of criterial levels. Thus for
the RSA test at intermediate level:
a. Accuracy: Pronunciation still obviously influenced by L1
though clearly intelligible. Grammatical/lexical accuracy is
generally high, though some errors which do not destroy
communication are acceptable.
b. Appropriacy: Use of language generally appropriate to
function. The overall intention of the speaker is always clear.
c. Range: A fair range of language is available to the candidate.
He is able to express himself without overtly having to search
for words.
d. Flexibility: Is able to take the initiative in a conversation and
to adapt to new topics or changes of though neither of these
may be consistently manifested.
e. Size: Most contributions may be short, but some evidence of
ability to produce more complex utterances and to develop
these into discourse should be manifested.
3. Obtaining valid and reliable scoring
Scoring will be valid and reliable only if: Clearly recognisable
and appropriate descriptions of criterial levels are written and scorers
are trained to use them. Irrelevant features of performance are
ignored. There is more than one scorer for each performance.

10
a. Accent :
1. Pronunciation frequently unintelligible.
2. Frequent gross errors and a very heavy accent make
understanding difficult, require frequent repetition.
3. "Foreign accent" requires concentrated listening,
and mispronunciations lead to occasional
misunderstanding and apparent errors in grammar or
vocabulary.
4. Marked "foreign accent" and occasional
mispronunciations which do not interfere with
understanding.
5. No conspicuous mispronunciations, but would not
be taken for a native speaker.
6. Native pronunciation, with no trace of foreign
accent."
b. Grammar :
1. Grammar almost entirely inaccurate phrases.
2. Constant errors showing control of very few major
patterns and frequently preventing communication.
3. Frequent errors showing some major patterns
uncontrolled and causing occasional irritation and
misunderstanding.
4. Occasional errors showing imperfect control of
some patterns but no weakness that causes
misunderstanding.
5. Few errors, with no patterns of failure.
6. No more than two errors during the interview

11
c. Vocabulary :
1. Vocabulary inadequate for even the simplest
conversation.
2. Vocabulary limited to basic personal and survival
areas (time, food, transportation, family, etc.)
3. Choice of words sometimes inaccurate, limitations
of vocabulary prevent discussion of some common
professional and social topics.
4. Professional vocabulary adequate to discuss special
interests: general vocabulary permits discussion of
any non-technical subject with some
circumlocutions.
5. Professional vocabulary broad and precise; general
vocabulary adequate to cope with complex practical
problems and varied social situations.
6. Vocabulary apparently as accurate and extensive as
that of an educated native speaker.
d. Fluency :
1. Speech is so halting and fragmentary that
conversation is virtually impossible.
2. Speech is very slow and uneven except for short or
routine sentences.
3. Speech is frequently hesitant and jerky: sentences
may be left uncompleted.
4. Speech is occasionally hesitant, with some
unevenness caused by rephrasing and groping for
words.
5. Speech is effortless and smooth, but perceptibly
non-native in speech and evenness.
6. Speech on all professional and general topics as
effortless and smooth as a native speaker's.

12
e. Comprehension :
1. Understands too little for the simplest type of
conversation.
2. Understands only slow, very simple speech on
common social and touristic topics; requires
constant repetition and rephrasing.
3. Understands careful, somewhat simplified speech
when engaged in a dialogue, but may require
considerable repetition and rephrasing.
4. Understands quite well normal educated speech
when engaged in a dialogue, but requires occasional
repetition or rephrasing.
5. Understands everything in normal educated
conversation. except for very colloquial or low-
frequency items, or exceptionally rapid or slurred
speech.
6. Understands everything in both formal and
colloquial speech to be expected of an educated
native speaker.

13
 BAB III

CONCLUSION

A. Conclusion

This paper discusses the assessment of speaking skills in a second

language, specifically in the aspect of pronunciation. Its objective is to
evaluate students’ speaking abilities effectively, taking into account
components such as pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and
comprehension. Speaking assessments include various methods such as
interviews, structured speech tests, and objective pronunciation tests.
These techniques aim to produce valid and reliable evaluations, though
there remain challenges in accurately measuring these components. So,
assessing speaking ability requires clear evaluation criteria and the
involvement of more than one assessor to ensure consistent and accurate
results.

B. Suggest
We are the writer want to apology for the shortage of this paper.
We know that this paper is still far from perfect, so that we need the
suggest from the reader in order to perfection from this paper. Thank you
so much.

14
 REFERENCES

Harris, D.P. 1969. Testing English As a second language. New York :

McGrawHill.

Hughes, Arthur. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Heaton, JB. 1989. Writing English Language Test. New York : Longman.

15