Federal University of Minas GeraisEnglish: Oral ExpressionKarina Helen BruggerProfessor Thiago Nascimento

An analysis of the criteria proposed by Arthur Hughes to assess oral ability

Belo Horizonte, November 27th, 2014In chapter ten of the book Testing for Language Teachers (Cambridge Language Teaching Library, 1989), Arthur Hughes proposes a set of criterial levels to asses a student's oral ability in a Proficiency level. In this essay, I am going to analyze if those criteria are still the ideal model to be followed when testing oral ability, and if not, how they can be adapted to today's reality. This analysis will be done using as a support the criteria developed by the International English Language Testing System (IELTS).

1. AccentFrom grades 1 to 3, the criteria are still acceptable; most of the spoken English tests we have today demand intelligibility from the speakers. As long as their native accent doesn't impair communication, they deserve a good grade. Now, from grades 4 to 6 there is a problem. Arthur considers as a perfect oral production not having traces of foreign accent; this is widely criticized today, and was also criticized at the time he wrote the book. English is now a 'lngua franca", so it is virtually impossible to determine what is a native pronunciation, or rather, what is the correct native pronunciation. There is also a cultural question, many people consider important to keep you mother tongue's accent in order to preserve your cultural identity. On the IELTS criteria, in the "Pronunciation" part, the highest grade is given if the person "uses a full range of pronunciation features with precision and subtlety; sustains flexible use of features throughout and is effortless to understand". These criteria don't leave an opening to criticism, they are well structured and fit to our reality.

2. Grammar

There are no problems with these criteria, they are fair and still work for today's reality. The IELTS criteria are similar, with only one difference. In the IELTS, there is a distinction between error and slip. The highest grade is given to a person who "uses a full range of structures naturally and appropriately; produces consistently accurate structures apart from slips characteristic of native speaker speech". But then there is another issue, what is a native speaker slip? Who can decide that? Is it being considered the speech of an educated native person? Maybe this specificities should be taken in consideration.

3. Vocabulary

When he says "professional vocabulary" he is being too specific and too broad at the same time. For instance, if this criteria are being used to evaluate someone for a job interview or this test is used exclusively for professional matters, it is ok to say that. But if this is just a general proficiency test, this criteria should be excluded, because there can be, for example, a teenager doing the test, and he or she probably will not have this kind of vocabulary, which doesn't mean they are not fluent. According to the IELTS criteria, a person would get the highest grade if he or she "uses vocabulary with full flexibility and precision in all topics; uses idiomatic language naturally and accurately". When it's said "all topics", that probably means non-technical topics, since there is no specification of which area the person should master in the case of technical topics.

4. Fluency

The same problem regarding "professional" domain happens here. Also, the demand of a native speaker speech. To be fluent does not mean not being recognized as a non-native person, it means speaking as effortless as one would in his or her own language. Again, the IELTS criteria are fair in this point. A person gets the highest score if he or she "speaks fluently with only rare repetition or self correction; any hesitation is content-related rather than to find words or grammar; speaks coherently with fully appropriate cohesive features; develops topics fully and appropriately."

5. Comprehension

Although there is not an specific section regarding comprehension in the IELTS scoring table, comprehension is an important feature or oral ability, one cannot speak well if he or she doesn't understand well. Therefore, Arthur was right when he added this to his descriptions, and the criteria he used were well structured and fit perfectly in today's reality. On the other sections, when he used as basis an "educated native speaker", there could be a space for criticism, because it could be inferred that according to him, one is fluent only when he or she is educated, even native people. However, if you consider fluency as the domain of both formal and colloquial structures - like he specified in number 6 of the comprehension topic - this distinction is justified.

In conclusion, Arthur's method is still valid, apart from some details. Things changed a lot over the years, but the fact that many institutions still follow his original ideas shows that he was ahead of his time in many aspects. The criteria discussed should continue to evolve, in order to follow up the social and cultural development. And, of course, because language is something that changes all the time, and will continue to change. Thus, it will only be possible to fairly evaluate students if the criteria evolve too.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

HUGHES, Arthur. Testing oral ability. In: HUGHES, Arthur. Testing for Language Teachers. 2nd ed. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pag. 111 - 112.

IELTS Speaking Assessment Criteria, 2012. Disponvel em: . Acesso em: 24 de novembro de 2014