Implementing assessment reform can be challenging. Proposed new assessments must be seen by stakeholders to be fit for purpose, and sometimes the perceptions of key stakeholders, such as teachers and students, may differ from the assessment developers. This article considers the recent introduction of a new high-stakes assessment of spoken proficiency for students of foreign languages in New Zealand high schools. The new assessment aims to measure spoken proficiency through the recording of a range of unstaged peer-to-peer interactions as they take place throughout the year. It contrasts with an earlier assessment that drew on a summative teacher-led interview. The article presents findings from a survey of teachers (n = 152), completed two years into the assessment reform, in which teachers were asked to consider the relative usefulness of the two assessment formats. Findings suggest that teachers consider the new assessment to be, in most respects, significantly more useful than the earlier model, and that the new assessment is working relatively well. Some challenges emerge, however, in particular around the feasibility and fairness of collecting ongoing evidence of spontaneous peer-to-peer performance. Findings raise issues to be considered if the new assessment is to work more successfully.
BachmanL. F.PalmerA. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2.
BachmanL. F.PalmerA. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3.
BorgS. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. New York and London: Continuum.
4.
BrooksL. (2009). Interacting in pairs in a test of oral proficiency: Co-constructing a better performance. Language Testing, 26(3), 341–366.
5.
CsépesI. (2002). Is testing speaking in pairs disadvantageous for students? Effects on oral test scores. novELTy, 9(1), 22–45.
6.
DucasseA.BrownA. (2009). Assessing paired orals: Raters’ orientation to interaction. Language Testing, 26(3), 423–443.
7.
EastM. (2008). Dictionary use in foreign language writing exams: Impact and implications. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
8.
EastM.ScottA. (2011a). Assessing the foreign language proficiency of high school students in New Zealand: From the traditional to the innovative. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 179–189.
9.
EastM.ScottA. (2011b). Working for positive washback: The standards-curriculum alignment project for Learning Languages. Assessment Matters, 3, 94–115.
EgyüdG.GloverP. (2001). Oral testing in pairs: A secondary school perspective. ELT Journal, 55(1), 70–76.
12.
FootM. C. (1999). Relaxing in pairs. ELT Journal, 53(1), 36–41.
13.
FulcherG. (1996). Testing tasks: Issues in task design and the group oral. Language Testing, 13(1), 23–51.
14.
FulcherG. (2003). Testing second language speaking. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
15.
GalacziE. D. (2010). Paired speaking tests: An approach grounded in theory and practice. In MaderJ.ÜrkünZ. (Eds.), Recent approaches to teaching and assessing speaking. IATEFL TEA SIG conference proceedings. Canterbury, UK: IATEFL Publications.
16.
GalacziE. D.ffrenchA. (2011). Context validity. In TaylorL. (Ed.), Examining speaking: Research and practice in assessing second language speaking (pp. 112–170). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HubbardR. (1978). The probable consequences of violating the normality assumption in parametric statistical analysis. Area, 10(5), 393–398.
18.
JacobyS.OchsE. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 171–183.
19.
KramschC. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366–372.
20.
LuomaS. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
MayL. (2009). Co-constructed interaction in a paired speaking test: The rater’s perspective. Language Testing, 26(3), 397–422.
22.
MayL. (2011). Interactional competence in a paired speaking test: Features salient to raters. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 127–145.
23.
McNamaraT.RoeverC. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
24.
MessickS. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241–256.
25.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.
26.
NakatsuharaF. (2009). Conversational styles in group oral tests: How is the conversation constructed?, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Essex, UK.
27.
NakatsuharaF. (2011). Effects of test-taker characteristics and the number of participants in group oral tests. Language Testing, 28(4), 483–508.
28.
NortonJ. (2005). The paired format in the Cambridge Speaking Tests. ELT Journal, 59(4), 287–297.
29.
NunanD. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
van LierL. (1989). Reeling, writhing, drawling, stretching, and fainting in coils: Oral proficiency interviews as conversation. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 489–508.
42.
WeirC. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
WinkeP. (2011). Evaluating the validity of a high-stakes ESL test: Why teachers’ perceptions matter. TESOL Quarterly, 45(4), 628–660.
44.
YoffeL. (1997). An overview of the ACTFL proficiency interview: A test of speaking ability. Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 1(2), 2–13.
