Students and teachers' perceptions of speaking assessment at upper-high schools in Vietnam

bility to speak 
various languages, as in ‘she is fluent in five 
languages’, whereas the technical meaning is 
applied to characterize a student’s speech. 
What makes it difficult to assess fluency is 
that features such as flow and smoothness in 
language, as well as the use of pausing and 
hesitation markers are complex; they do not 
just describe a person’s speech but also 
include the listener’s perception of the 
speech. [8] 
Turn-taking 
In all natural speech more than one partaker is 
required, and to keep a conversation going it 
is important to manage turn-taking. As stated, 
mastering turn-taking is important in spoken 
interaction, and the CEFR has described this 
competence in two different illustrative 
scales. 
Types of speaking assessment 
Formative and summative assessment 
Formative assessment is based on what the 
students achieve during the whole course, and 
the teacher gives feedback to the students 
with the aim of improving learning. The 
definition of formative assessment is thus 
assessment for learning as opposed to 
summative assessment which is assessment of 
learning. [9] 
Self-assessment 
Self-assessment is another assessment method 
to employ in the classroom, and it is certainly 
assessment for learning as it entails that the 
students are concerned about their own 
learning progress. Brown [10] defines self-
assessment as all assessment that involves the 
learners to evaluate their own competence and 
performance against a set of criteria. 
Criterion-reference assessment 
Criterion-referenced assessment means that 
the students’ performances are measured 
against certain criteria and not against other 
student’s performances [11]. The principle of 
not comparing students to one another is 
absolute and very significant. This entails, for 
example, that any student may attain the 
highest mark if she/he has scored very highly 
on all criteria in a test. 
Speaking assessment practice in Vietnam 
In Vietnam, there have also been many 
researches in the field of speaking 
assessment. N. H. H. Thuy & T. T. T. Nga 
[12] explored EFL teachers’ perceptions of 
in-class English speaking assessment. The 
constructs of teachers’ perceptions 
investigated in the current research included 
their general understanding of speaking 
assessment, the task types of in-class 
speaking assessment, and the teachers’ work 
involved in the assessment implementation. 
Phan. N.H.N [13] has mentioned some 
constraints in English language teaching in 
Vietnam in her research. One of which stems 
from the exam-oriented curriculum, the 
teaching practice focuses on receptive skills 
only. She carries out some interviews for her 
qualitative research and the finding is that 
two-thirds of the participants indicated that 
their students did not have any opportunities 
to practise their English, and or to interact 
with different speakers from all over the 
world. As a result, they were quite bookish 
and were not really motivated to learn 
English. 
N. H. H. Thuy & T. T. T. Nga [12] conducted 
a study to investigate EFL teachers’ 
perceptions of in-class English speaking 
assessment. The constructs of teachers’ 
perceptions investigated in the research 
included their general understanding of 
speaking assessment, the task types of in-
class speaking assessment, and the teachers’ 
work involved in the assessment 
implementation. 
Speaking in the new textbooks in Vietnam 
As mentioned in the previous part, the 
assessments of oral proficiency in Vietnam, 
using the new textbook by Prof. Hoang Van 
Van have posed many constraints for teachers 
of English at upper-high schools. At upper-
high schools, the English curriculum consists 
Nguyễn Thị Diệu Hà Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 191(15): 245 - 250 
248 
of three courses, namely English 10, English 
11 and English 12. Each course utilizes one of 
the three textbooks in the series, which are 
Tiếng Anh 10, Tiếng Anh 11 and Tiếng Anh 
12; and is taught in 105 45-minute periods, 
which makes the total amount of time for the 
whole curriculum 315 periods (approximately 
236 hours). 
METHODOLOGY 
The research design 
In this study, the qualitative research design is 
selected as the main approach to conduct the 
study because the main aim is to investigate 
the types and criteria that teachers at upper 
high schools used to assess speaking. 
Participants 
126 students from three classes in Luong 
Ngoc Quyen, Chu Van An, and Dong Hy 
upper-high schools were selected to 
participate in the study. 15 teachers of English 
at three high schools were invited to answer 
questions in the questionnaires and giving 
response in semi-structured interviews to 
explore possible problems they may have 
when conducting speaking activities and 
assessing practice. 
Procedures 
The data collection process was carried out in 
two stages for a period of about 12 weeks. 
The questionnaire was carried out first, and 
then the interviews were carried out at each 
school, first the teacher interview followed by 
the student interviews. 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 
Results from questionnaires for students 
 How often do you have speaking test? 
There are 70 answers as hardly ever, that 
takes up about 55% of the total. 36 answers as 
sometimes that accounts for 28.5% of the 
total. 20 answers as once or twice a term that 
accounts for 15.8 % of the total. Data 
obtained from the first question shows that 
most of the students hardly ever have 
speaking test during the school terms. 
 What types of task you are required to do? 
There are 80 answers as questions and 
answers, which accounts for 63.5% of the 
total. 20 answers for read aloud task which 
takes up 15.8% of the total. 10 students said 
that they played in roles which accounts for 
7.9% of the total. Few answers for the other 
options. The data reveals that teachers used 
questions and answers mostly when they 
conduct speaking task types. 
 Do you know how you are assessed? 
126 responses are negative. That means 
students do not know on what criteria they are 
assessed during the speaking test. That also 
means that they do not know what to focus on 
while doing the speaking test. 
 Do you like speaking test? 
92 students said they do not like the speaking 
test, which is 73% of the total. 12 answers are 
positive. That means only 9.5% of the 
students said that they like speaking test. 24 
answers are negative which accounts for 
17.4%. The data shows that most of the 
students do not like the speaking test. 
 Do you think that speaking ability is more 
important than other language skills? 
The answers are surprising that 112 students 
said that other skills are more important 
which takes up 89% of the total. Only 3 
students said that speaking is more important 
that accounts for only 2.3%. 15 students did 
not have an idea about the importance of 
speaking. 
Results from questionnaires for teachers 
 Have you had any trainings about 
assessment? 
12 out of 15 teachers said that they have very 
limited knowledge about language 
assessment, which takes up 80% of the total. 
Only one teacher said that she had learned 
about assessment at university but did not 
remember much about it. Two of the teachers 
said that they studied English in an in-service 
program so they did not learn about language 
assessment. The data show that teachers at 
upper-high schools have very limited 
knowledge about language assessment in 
general and speaking assessment in particular. 
 What are the types of task do you use to 
assess speaking? 
Nguyễn Thị Diệu Hà Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 191(15): 245 - 250 
249 
10 teachers said that they just used questions 
and answers as the popular task type (67%). 
Three teachers said that they used role-play 
tasks (20%). Two teachers said that they used 
other types of task. The data shows that 
teachers used just few task types. Most of the 
tasks are responsive type. 
 What criteria do you use to assess speaking 
ability? 
8 out of teacher said that the speaking 
assessment criteria are on grammar and 
vocabulary (53%). Four teachers said that 
they used both macro and micro criteria when 
marking students. Three teachers said that 
they give marks holistically that means they 
combined varieties of criteria of assessment. 
The data reveals a fact that teachers take 
serious attentions on grammar when assessing 
non-grammar aspects of language. 
 Do you know about these types of speaking 
assessment? 
Only two teachers know a little bit about 
criterion assessment because they had just 
took an exam on CEFR. Most of the 
interviewers have no ideas of the listed 
speaking assessment. 
Results from interviews 
Three teachers of English at different schools 
are selected for the semi-structured interview. 
They are selected because they have just 
passed the C1 level exam and they seemed to 
have better understanding of speaking task 
types and assessing speaking criteria. The 
researcher asked the first teacher some 
questions about problems she encountered 
when conducting speaking assessment. She 
confessed that she does not do many speaking 
activities as well as speaking test while 
teaching. The reason for that is that the 
students are not interested in speaking. They 
just want to do the written test to strengthen 
grammar and reading ability. The other 
reason is that the large class size prevents her 
from doing speaking activities. She wants to 
teach a smaller class so that she can help 
students develop oral skills. 
The second teacher said that he ignores most 
of the speaking activities in class because he 
did not have enough time to do the task. 
Besides, he has limited understanding about 
language assessment. He would like to attend 
a course specified on language testing and 
assessment. 
The third teacher said that she is aware of the 
importance of speaking skill and she really 
want to help students to talk in the class but 
the constrains of the curriculum prevents her 
from doing time-consuming speaking 
activities. She said that she expect some 
changes in the way of graduation exam so that 
the focus of teaching will be on oral skills. 
CONCLUSION 
By conducting a research to investigate 
speaking practice at three upper-high schools 
in Thai Nguyen province with 126 students 
and 15 teachers of English, the conclusion is 
that: 
 Teachers do not spend much time and 
energy on the speaking skill. In other 
words, the focus of teaching is not on oral 
communication just because of the exam-
based curriculum. 
 Teachers do not have sufficient 
understanding of speaking and assessment 
as well as speaking task types. 
Implication 
The influence of the exam-based curriculum 
has had bad washback on both teaching and 
learning of oral skills at upper-high schools. 
This is the cause of unbalanced attention has 
been paid to teaching and learning of 
speaking and listening which are the main 
attentions of communicative teaching. In 
coming years, there should be alternative 
forms of assessment for those who expect to 
develop their oral skill. One of the possible 
solutions is that we can have oral exams 
through out the school year. Those who gain 
good achievement in those exams will not be 
required to take the final exam for graduation, 
or they may still sit for the exam if they want 
some plus marks for the other subjects. There 
should be changes in the way language is test 
in the final exam so that the focus of teaching 
shift from exam-based to competence based 
to develop full language ability. 
Nguyễn Thị Diệu Hà Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 191(15): 245 - 250 
250 
REFERENCES 
1. Rivers, Wilga. M. (1987). Interactive Language 
Teaching. New York: Cambridge Language 
Teaching Library. 
2. Nation, I. P. (2011). Second language speaking. 
In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in 
second language teaching and learning (pp. 444-
454). New York, NY: Routledge. 
3. Inbar-Lourie, O. (2008). Constructing a 
language assessment knowledge base: a focus on 
language assessment courses. Language Testing, 
25: 385-402. 
4. Brown. H. Douglas. (2004). Language 
assessment: Principles and classroom practices. 
White Plains, NY. Pearson Education. 
5. Scott, Thornbury. (2005). How to teach 
speaking. Pearson Education 
6. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European 
Framework of Reference for Languages: 
Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Council of 
Europe, Modern Languages Division, 
Strasbourg/Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press. 
7. Bachman, L.F. & Palmer, A.S. (1996). 
Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press. 
8. Louma, S. (2003). Assessing Speaking 
(Cambridge Language Assessment). Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. 
9. Fulcher, G. & Davidson, F. (2007). Language 
Testing and Assessment an advanced resource 
book. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London 
and New York. 
10. Brown. H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by 
Principle: An Interactive Approach to Language 
Pedagogy. New York: Longman. 
11. Simensen, A.M. (1998). Teaching a Foreign 
Language Principles and Procedures. 2
nd
 edition 
Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjørke AS, Bergen 
12. N.H.H. Thuy & T.T.T. Nga. (2017). An 
investigation into EFL teachers' perceptions of in-
class speaking assessment. VNU Journal of 
Foreign Studies, (Vol.34), No.2, 125-139. 
13. Phan. N.H.N. (2014). Challenges/constraints 
in teaching today's English in Vietnam: Teachers' 
voice. Conference proceeding. 
TÓM TẮT 
NHẬN THỨC CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VÀ HỌC SINH TRONG VIỆC ĐÁNH GIÁ 
KỸ NĂNG NÓI TẠI CÁC TRƯỜNG THPT Ở VIỆT NAM 
Nguyễn Thị Diệu Hà* 
Khoa Ngoại ngữ - ĐH Thái Nguyên 
Thực tế cho thấy bộ sách giáo khoa tiếng Anh mới được biên soạn bởi GS. Hoàng Văn Vân và các 
cộng sự đã tạo ra một sự chuyển biến lớn trong bối cảnh giảng dạy tiếng Anh ở Việt Nam từ định 
hướng lấy người dạy làm trung tâm sang lấy người học làm trung tâm, tập trung vào khả năng giao 
tiếp. Tuy nhiên, việc sử dụng bộ sách đã đặt ra nhiều thách thức cho giáo viên dạy tiếng Anh tại 
các trường trung học phổ thông, đặc biệt là việc dạy và đánh giá kỹ năng Nói. Từ bối cảnh trên, 
chúng tôi nhận thấy cần có những nghiên cứu nghiêm túc để tìm hiểu cảm nhận của giáo viên và 
học sinh về vấn đề đó nhằm tạo ra một khung lý thuyết cho viêc đánh giá kỹ năng Nói. Mục tiêu 
của nghiên cứu này là điều tra các loại loại hình bài tập mà giáo viên sử dụng cũng như các tiêu 
chí để đánh giá kỹ năng Nói. 
Từ khóa: nhận thức; đánh giá kỹ năng Nói; đánh giá ngôn ngữ; học ngôn ngữ; tiêu chí đánh giá 
Ngày nhận bài: 12/12/2018; Ngày hoàn thiện: 26/12/2018; Ngày duyệt đăng: 28/12/2018 
*
 Tel: 0947 998798, Email: dieuha.sfl@tnu.edu.vn