Dissertation Introduction

So my research question is, does Gunther Breauxs conversational fluency focused method for teaching Korean university students provide a suitable approach for teaching communicative English skills

!ntroduction " # statement about communicative approaches$ #ccording to an article reported in the Korea %imes &K'on, "()(*, in "((+ Koreas rank on the %,E-. iB% speaking test 'as )")st, 'hereas its composite rank put it at //th0 Koreans scored above average on the reading, 'riting, and listening portions of the test, ho'ever fell belo' average on the speaking section0 #s .i notes throughout her study &)++1* of Korean teachers using 2ommunicative .anguage %eaching &2.%*, an over reliance on grammar grammar based examinations, and a tradition of audiolingual and grammar3translation teaching methods have stymied an uptake in 2.%0 #ll of .is study participants fault the countrys English section of the 4ational 5niversity Entrance Examination for making grammar, reading comprehension, translation, and listening comprehension the primary measurement0 !n Korea, 2.% adoption 'as decreed by the government starting in )++6 &.i, )++1*, ho'ever as .is study makes apparent, Korean teachers, and presumably non3Korean teachers, struggled to implement it for a variety of reasons0 -urthermore, .is findings confirm much of 'hat 7armer suggests &"((/, p0/8* are some difficulties in applying any methodology outside of #merica or England0 7e contributes some blame to 'estern ideals of learning0 .iu defines these ideals &)++1*$
9 In the West, teaching is process or discovery-oriented. Interaction, group work, and student-centredness are the order of the day in classes whose normal size is under 20 students, and which usually have far more resources than their Asian equivalents.

%his runs in stark contrast to the 7ollidays description &in .iu, )++1* of the teacher &in #sian countries* as purveying kno'ledge to students 'ho are expected to absorb and retain it0 #n additional complication, Kachru reasons &in .iu, )++1*, is that there has been an over reliance on data collected on Second .anguage #cquistion from studies conducted in 4orth #merica, Britain, and #ustralia0 :hat is needed he argues, are more studies conducted 'orld3'ide0 ;ifferences in methodologies and educational cultures are not the only issues plaguing 2.% and other non3teacher3centered methodologies in Korean classrooms0 2reating tests to

measure communicative ability continues to prove difficult0 Savignon illustrates the importance of testing &in .i, )++1*, observing that curricula changes have suffered due to unsatisfactory evaluations0 Even determining factors, such as validity and reliability, essential in measuring a test is up for debate &-ulcher, "(((*0 Establishing the type of kno'ledge to test, Bachman sums up communicative competence, <000in addition to the kno'ledge of grammatical rules, the kno'ledge of ho' language is used to achieve particular communicative goals, and the recognition of language use as a dynamic process= &)++(, p01>*0 :hile Bachmans explanation is broad, -ulcher, 'ith the help of ?orro', boils do'n the requirements of communicative testing &"(((*$
9 )0 @erformance$ test3takers should actually have to produce language0 9 "0 !nteraction3based$ there 'ill be actual <face3to3face oral interaction 'hich involves not only the modification of expression and content000but also an amalgam of receptive and productive skills= &?orro', )+/+, p0 )A+*0 &Do I need to paraphrase this since its a secondary quote?) 9 >0 5npredictability$ .anguage use in real3time interaction is unpredictable0 9

7e goes on to raise the issues of standardiBing assessment and scoring, as 'ell as the need for more research into measuring performance from the reliable use of integrated tasks0 ;espite these dra'backs, -ulcher defends the authenticity of communicative testing &"(((*$
9 )0 @urpose$ the test3taker must be able to recognise communicative purpose and be able to respond appropriately0 9 "0 #uthenticity$ input and prompts in the language test should not be simplified for the learner0 9 >0 2ontext$ language 'ill vary from context to contextC some talk 'ill be appropriate in one context and not another0 %he test3taker must therefore be tested on hisDher ability to cope 'ith the context of situation &physical environment, status of participants, the degree of formality, and expressing different attitudes*, as 'ell as the linguistic context0

!f 2ommunicative ?ethodologies &2?* are to be received by Korean educational culture, then progress needs to be made in testing0 %o address the shortcomings, Gunther Breaux has developed 'hat he calls a 2onversation3 Based English &2BE* methodology to improve speaking fluency0 7is methodology dra's on 2ommunicative .anguage %eaching &2.%*, the 4atural #pproach, and 2ooperative .anguage .earning &2..* as described by Eichards and Eodgers &"((), p0)6>3"((*0 -luency, Breaux &"()>* suggests, is the perquisite to communicative speaking0 %eaching accuracy first, he argues, creates barriers to learning by interfering 'ith human nature, and limiting opportunities for students to speak0 %o motivate students to speak, Breaux claims that, <:hat

gets tested, gets done= &"()>*0 -ulcher seconds this notion &"()(, p0)3"* in 'riting of .athams and Euchs observations about tests as motivating devices0 %esting for conversational speaking is Breauxs solution to improving fluency and accuracy, concurrently0 .is study participants certainly support this notion0 7ence, this study aims to test the theories put forth by Breaux, by evaluating his tests as per a variety of factors, and use the data collected from these tests as a means of measuring performance gains, test validity and reliability, and methodology effectiveness0 #ttempts 'ere made to replicate the conditions that Breaux describes &"()>*0 2lasses consisted predominately of first year Korean university students, and 'hen possible, Breauxs materials 'ere utiliBed, along 'ith his prescribed teaching and testing methods0 %his research should be of value to teachers 'orking in Korea, as conversational classes have been mandated by Koreas 4ational Education 2urriculum &K'on, "(((*0

.iterature Eevie'$

%o begin addressing 2BE, it is best to start by covering the states of 2.%, the 4atural #pproach, and 2.., and identifying the aspects that 2BE utiliBes0 2.% as, Eichards and Eodgers surmise , is founded on several principles$
3 3 3 3 .earners learn a language through using it to communicate0 #uthentic and meaningful communication should be the goal of the classroom activities0 -luency is an important dimension of communication0 2ommunication involves the integration of different language skills0 .earning is a process of creative construction and involves trial and error0 &"((), p0)/"*

%hese principles are cited, nearly verbatim, as underlying 2BE, although Breaux did not put them so succinctly &Should Breauxs presentation be addressed as a past event, or is there a citation that I
should use for referencing his powerpoint?)0

7e has also modelled the application of his

methodology on Fohnsons and Fohnsons &)+++* five characteristics of Gstandard communicative methodology &2?*0 @ractitioners of 2? can choose to favour Gthe appropriate, over grammar instruction, or to paraphrase 7ymes from Fohnson and Fohnson &)+++, p08+*, rules of use trump grammar rules0 %hey explain that initial 2? sought to provide ." learners 'ith concepts that :ilkins defines as &in Eichards and Eodgers, "((),
4

p0)6A* notional &G000time, sequence, quantity, location, frequency* and functional &Grequests, denials, offers, compalints*0 Fohnson and Fohnson note that syllabuses shaped primarily by these concepts tended to'ards 'hat 2ook calls Gguided role play &"((1, p0"A+*0 5nlike #udio3.ingualisms gap3filled predetermined dialogues, 2ook explains, 2? merely establishes a setting or scene in 'hich learners must use their kno'ledge of the ." to perform relevant output0 ?essage3focus, the second characteristic of 2?, as Fohnson and Fohnson &)+++, p08+,/(* explain, is considered to be the basis of standard 2?)0 .anguage, they 'rite, is meant to purvey information, not simply reflect grammatical rules0 Exercises, the t'o explain by referencing :iddo'sons 'ork on the topic, should therefore promote use over usage0 Eichards and Eodgers &"((), p0)/>* simplify this as an emphasis on information sharing and transfer, for example by creating messages &output* and comprehending messages &input*0 2BEs primary mode of instruction, the daily conversational groups of t'o or three students aided by sets of questions, could be seen as Breauxs interpretation of Brumfits ;eep3End Strategy0 ;iffering slightly from Brumfits strategy, Breaux provides the items first, but rather than drill, instructs directly as needed0 %he third characteristic, the psycholinguistic process of communication, Fohnson and Fohnson &)+++, p0/)* explain, is <000the users desire to convey a message,= a notion shared 'ith message3focus0 #ccording to Fohnson and Fohnson, the psycholinguistics process explains ho' learners comprehend messages$ 9 @sycholinguistics provides us 'ith the insight that listeners process selectively, not attending equally to
every 'ord of a message0 5nlike traditional listening comprehension exercises in 'hich the learner is made to focus on each 'ord, information transfer requires the learner to attend only to those parts of the message relevant to the task set0 &)+++, p0/)*

Fohnson and Fohnson also emphasiBe ho' the processs top3do'n nature of input comprehension leads the listenerDreader to process input using background kno'ledge to interpret inputs0 7edge, they explain, G000divides this background kno'ledge into general kno'ledge, subHect3specific kno'ledge, and cultural kno'ledge &)+++, p0/1*0 %hese aspects of interpretative comprehension, Fohnson and Fohnson continue, are the result of explorations in cognitive psychology, specifically, schemata, frames and scripts0 Examining these fine
1 %here

are multiple interpretations of 2?, ho'ever the standard definition appears to be the most commonly accepted, and is the focus of this study0
5

points are beyond the reach of this study, but a thorough discussion of these concepts can be found in Bro'n and Iule &)+1>*0 Eichards and Eodgers &"((), p0)/>* define risk3taking, the fourth characteristic, as learning from mistakes in order to extend ones kno'ledge by learning to employ multiple communication strategies0 #lthough, as Fohnson and Fohnson &)+++, p0/)* recount, educators desire to prevent errors, 'hich the account for a holdover from behaviourist learning theory, and thus hindered learners from developing from their mistakes0 %he fault of such instruction, 'hereby learners are taught to deduce meaning by focusing on each 'ord rather than using context and partial understanding to comprehend, they argue, is that it fails to provide learners 'ith an essential communication skill0 #lternatively, the deep3end strategy coined by Fohnson &in Fohnson and Fohnson, )+++, p0/(*, aims to put learners into production activities0 7o'ever, this may adversely affect learners and lead them to communication strategies like avoidance strategies, 'hich 2ook &"((1, p0)(/* explains, leaners adapt to avoid topics or 'ords due to their inherit difficulties0 Jarying activities so that students are encouraged to confront these difficulties can be used to address the issue 'ithout direct intervention that can harm learner confidence0 -ree practice, the final characteristic, skill psychologists explain carries importance because learners are expected to perform several sub3skills simultaneously &Fohnson and Fohnson, )+++, p0/)*0 Speaking execution must satisfy several parameters, &like grammar, phonology, semantics, etc000* simultaneously for fluent exchanges0 %his skill cannot be drilled into learners 'ho then engage in part practice activities0 %herefore, Fohnson and Fohnson &)+++, p0/"* explain, 2? places considerable 'eight on free practice0 4ative #pproach 4e'mark and Eeibel &in Eichards and Eodgers, "((), p0 )+(* contend that adults are capable of grasping unordered grammar concepts, and that doing so has the potential to lead to native level mastery0 %his aspect of the 4atural #pproach, Eichards and Eodgers explain, is Hust a step in the progress of the 2ommunicative #pproach0 :hat makes the 4atural #pproach significant is its focus on comprehension and meaningful communication over grammatical correctness0 2BE methodology like'ise favours fluency over accuracy0 7o'ever, the 4ative

#pproach lacks real3'orld testing due to its theoretical basis0 !t is largely a frame'ork of hypotheses created by Krashen &Eichards and Eodgers, "((), p0)1)3)1>*, summarised here$ K %he #cquisitionD.earning 7ypothesis$ learners comprehend and communicate meaningfully in their .", Hust as they did 'hen naturally acquiring their first language &.)*0 2onversely, learning is the result of formal teaching of the rules and forms of the second language &."*, but does not lead to acquisition0 K %he ?onitor 7ypothesis$ learners use the forms garnered from the learning hypothesis to consciously correct themselves0 Self3correction is dependent on time &allo'ing enough time to apply rules*, focus on form, or -on-, &correct forms should be exaggerated to promote use*, and kno'ledge of rules &specifically an a'areness of rules that can be easily explained and formed*0 K %he !nput 7ypothesis$ the hypothesis, 'hich is concerned 'ith acquisition, suggests that learners acquire language in levels, 'hich should only be one level above their current proficiency0 #cquisition arises from context clues, common &'orld* kno'ledge, and other non3linguistic factors0 -luency develops over time as the learner constructs linguistic competencies from comprehension of inputs0 Subconsciously, the speaker, likely the teacher, 'ill attune to the learners comprehensible input level &understanding of input gleaned from situational and extralinguistic information*, so as to find the path of least resistance to comprehensible communication0 K %he #ffective -ilter 7ypothesis$ consists of motivation, self3confidence, and anxiety0 .earners that are able to lo'er their filters, 'ill be more highly motivated, self confident, and 'ill lack anxiety0 Iounger learners are most likely to have a lo' affective filter0 7o'ever, the theory underlying the 4ative #pproach has come under siege0 .everaging a body of criticisms, Lafar &"()(, p0)A(* suggests that too many factors contribute to an ." learners likeliness of attaining native like proficiency0 7e cites ?c.aughlins and Greggs assessments of the .anguage #cquisition ;evice, or .#;, &the subconscious 'ay learners acquire ne' language*0 %hey challenged .#;s effectiveness in learners post3puberty0 Lafar counters their assertions by citing 'riter Foseph 2onrad as an anecdotal example of an adult learner reaching native proficiency0 %his, he suggests, may provide Hustification for modifying the original understanding of .#;0 Lafar also touches upon confusion in terminology that plague Krashens theory, but are of little concern to this study0

2oncerning the ?onitor 7ypothesis, Lafar &"()(, p0)A)3)A"* takes issue 'ith the immeasurability and the hands3off nature of the three factors0 7e also complains of the theorys inability to address <difficult rules,= 'hich Krashen and %eller 'ilfully concede &in Lafar, "()(, p0)A)*0 Lafar references Greggs &"()(, p0)A"* anecdotes concerning comprehension occurring in learning devoid of acquisition0 ?c.aughlin, Lafar continues, suggests that acquisition alone 'ould lead to haphaBard meaningless production0 7e goes on to contend that childrens lack of the ?onitor does not explain ho' study results found that adult learners 'ere able to attain ." from learning0 Lafar notes that the ?onitor is missing such empirical evidence0 7oles persist in the 4atural ,rder 7ypothesis as 'ell0 Lafar claims that the route to attaining a target language is unpredictable, a fact, he mentions, that ?c.aughlin has proven &in Lafar, "()(, p0)A"*0 Krashens implications of a natural order are further compromised by the fact that his claim is based an already disproven English morpheme study as found by Gass and Selinker, and ?c.aughlin &Lafar, "()(, p0)A"*0 #nother aspect lacking in this theory that Lafar points out is the influence of learners .), citing research by :ode and Lobl that indicates that some learners 'ill benefit from their .) more than others0 %he reverse is also true in terms of some learners .) detracting from their acquisition0 Lafar sees this oversight as an oversimplification of Second .anguage #cquisition research to narro' the scope of his o'n theory so as to ignore individual ." learning needs0 #gain, Krashens emphasis of acquisition and a dearth of evidence opens his !nput 7ypothesis to criticism0 Lafar points to Greggs argument that acquisition develops out of extra3linguistic information as leading to guess'ork in comprehension0 %his may or may not lead to acquisition, as some grammatical rules are likely to be, in order of magnitude, greater than one level0 Krashen &in Lafar, "()(, p0)A>* addresses this criticism by suggesting that teachers should be able to observe learners competencies levels and provide necessary grammar instruction 'ith a <sufficient amount= of <comprehensible input0= ,nce again, Krashens failure to explain his o'n terminology provides no opportunities for measurement and leaves only room for criticism0 !n addressing the shortcomings of the #ffective -ilter 7ypothesis, Lafar finds considerably less to dispute0 7e takes issue 'ith Krashens broad assertion that all children have lo'
8

affective filter, arguing that some children are likely to be affected by personal factors that also trouble their adult counterparts &"()(, p0 )AA*0 7e argues that this hypothesis does not explain ho' some adult learners are able to overcome these factors to obtain native3like proficiency0 5sing Greggs anecdote about a 2hinese 'oman 'ith near native proficiency, he explains &"()(, p0)AA*, that Krashens hypothesis is unable to explain 'hy some aspects of the ." are absorbed, and ho' the filter impacts fossilisation and interlanguage0 #n ongoing focus of Krashens critics, is that of semantics0 7is hypotheses 'ere clearly made by a person speaking from experience0 By putting studies behind the claims in the hypotheses, Krashen could silence many of his detractors0 !t seems inevitable that such studies 'ould help pear do'n his claims about his hypotheses0 Krashens greatest transgression in publishing his hypotheses, is that he continues to stand by them 'ithout offering concrete data as a buttress against his assailants0 %hen again, many of the criticisms levelled against his theories are done so 'ith anecdotes0 Krashen has merely made it easier for his critics to do so by not providing evidence based on research0 !t 'ould be extreme to deem the 4ative #pproachs founding theories as trite0 5nderstanding that it is merely a debate over theory, and 'ith very little applicable measures being applied on either side, the discussion remains ongoing0 #dditional study 'ould allo' for concrete conclusions about the validity of each hypothesis, or to determine a need for refinement of the hypotheses to narro' the scope and simplify applicability of the frame'ork0 %his 'ould go a long 'ay to help legitimiBe the 4ative #pproach, and help educators create methods based off of the approach0 2onsider the similiarities bet'een the theories that underlie 2.% and Krashens hypotheses0 5nlike 2.%, Krashen makes grandiose pronouncements about his hypotheses, 'hereas 2.% theories have accumulated over time from various sources0 By making himself the poster child of this hypotheses, Krashen has also made himself into a lightning rod for his critics0 2ooperative .anguage .earning ;ue to the decentraliBed role that the teacher plays as a facilitator in a 2BE classroom, the group becomes the vehicle for learning0 %his is the pillar of 2..0 Eesearch from Salvin and Baloche &in Eichards and Eodgers, "((), p0"()* have found that overall there are benefits of 2.., 'ith the caveat that more research needs to be conducted, specifically in ." classes0
9

,ther criticisms, Eichards and Eodgers raise &"((), p0"()*, include 2..s suitability in teaching learners of mixed proficiencies, and the approachs limitations for beginners 'ho may not enHoy as many benefits as their counterparts0 #nother criticism that can be levelled at 2.., comes from Fohnson et al &in Eichards and Eodgers, "((), p0)++*, is the demands placed on the teacher, 'ho is expected to structure every aspect of the lesson, right do'n to the physical layout and groupings of the class0 ;etails 'ill be provided belo', but in brief technology eliminates many of these obstacles0 Eichards and Eodgers repeatedly note that 2%., the 4atural #pproach, and 2.. are malleable approaches, and so therefore 2BE is simply an amalgamation of the three approaches0 %esting %heory !n his book, @ractical .anguage %esting, -ulcher discusses t'o mandates for testing0 %he t'o mandates breakdo'n into local mandates &also kno' as classroom assessment*, <%he key feature of testing 'ithin a local mandate is that the testing should be Geco3logically sensitive, serving the local needs of teachers and learners= &"()(, p0"*, and the external mandate &also referred to as standardised testing*, <#n external mandate, on the other hand, is a reason for testing that comes from outside the local context= &"()(, p0"*0 %he former is a tool that helps teachers determine learners needs, and the latter is often used as a tool to inform educational policy0 2lashes valuing each mandate are persistent, but unnecessary for the focus of this paper0 %his study also ignores the debate that testing, as -olcault argues &in -ulcher, "()(, p013))*, is the best method of fairly evaluating learners0 2onsidering the types of testing laid out by Breaux &"()>*, this study is concerned 'ith the aspects of motivation, criterion3 referenced testing, validity, reliability, and dependability0 #s mentioned above, testing provides great motivation for students0 #dditionally, testing may further learning, as -ulcher 'rites, by diagnosing <individual learning needs= &"()(, p081*0 Black et al, he 'rites, 'ere able to prove this theory through a large3scale proHect to measure the effectiveness of formative assessment, 'hich yielded <an effect siBe of (0>= &"()(, p081*0 %est are crafted using the measurement qualities of reliability and validity0 Bachman &)++(, p0"A(* quotes 2ampbell and -iske to explain that reliability measures aim to use t'o similar methods to qualify a trait &i0e0 the scores of similarly designed tests*, 'hile validity measures
10

strive to challenge the agreeability of different measures of the same trait &i0e0 the results of a multiple choice grammar test 'ith the results of grammar scoring from an oral intervie'*0 !t is important to note the distinctions bet'een the t'o, as Bachman &)++(, p0"A(3"A)* explains, correlations can be <000interpreted as estimators of reliability or as evidence supporting validity0= %hese estimations are the product of <both professional Hudgment and empirical research= &Bachman, )++(, p0A>*0 Essentially, validity and reliability, are the best quantifiable measures 'ith 'hich to evaluate tests0 Beyond validity and reliability, tests can be analyBed on numerous criteria, 'hich exceed the focus of this study"0 Jalidity -ulcher uses Euchs explanation from )+"A &"()(, p0)+* to simply state that a tests validity is measured by its effectiveness in evaluating skills, kno'ledge, or other such demonstrable features0 -ulcher generaliBes five aspects of validity &"()(, p0"(*, 'hich are paraphrased here$ 9 2onsequential validity$ is the test developers responsibility to create testing materials that generate results that can be used to infer <about the kno'ledge, skills and abilities of a test taker are Hustified,= &he calls this relevance and usefulness*, and ho' use of test results impact the test taker0 9 Structural aspect$ tests must be structured and scored to measure the abilities or skills specific to the parameters of the test0 9 Eepresentative of content$ test items can only cover the domain of study0 9 Generalisability$ scores should predict ability outside of a testing context0 9 External aspect$ ho' test scores relate to similar or different measures of skills and abilities0 %hese terms represent -ulchers interpretation of validity0 7ughes uses the more 'idely used term of construct validity &"((>, p0"83>A* 'ith broader definitions of its aspects$ 9 2ontent validity$ the tests content represents a sample of the skills, abilities, or kno'ledge 'ith 'hich the test is concerned0 Skills, abilities or kno'ledge are specified from the outset of test construction to achieve content validity0 %hese 'ill inform the
2 -or

insight into all of the aspects of testing theory, see Bachman )++(0
11

types of testing items that the test maker selects0 %his has the added benefit of determining the focus of the class0 !ncreasing content validity increases the odds of accurate measurement0 9 2riterion3related validity$ determines ho' 'ell a tests results measure up to a other forms of assessment0 2riterion3related validity can be determined by concurrent validity and predictive validity0 9 2oncurrent validity$ allo's the test maker to measure simplified tests &simplified for practicality reasons* against a longer or full test &the criterion test* to find the ho' 'ell the simplified test results agree 'ith the full test results0 # correlation coefficient &or validity coefficient* is calculated to find the level of agreement bet'een the tests &this is addressed belo'*0 #ccepting the level of agreement is dependent on the tests purpose, so standardiBed tests 'ill demand a higher level of agreement than eco3logically sensitive &or local* tests0 2oncurrent validity may also be reached by comparing the level of agreement 'ith other forms of assessment, such as a teachers assessments0 9 @redictive validity$ attempts to establish a tests predictive capabilities in estimating a test takers future performance0 9 Jalidity in scoring$ aims to measure specific language elements0 %est items that have a broad of focus are inaccurate because they ignore the intended focus of the item0 !f an ans'er is unintelligible as a result of the students production, then this is a fla' of the testing item0 9 -ace validity$ test items that directly measure skills, abilities, or kno'ledge have face validity0 %est takers andDor administrators may have trouble accepting the results of tests that indirectly measure skills, abilities, or kno'ledge0 %his can lead to performance issues as test takers may not perform at full capacity0 %est makers should heed caution 'hen considering indirect testing techniques, and deploy convincing rationales as to the validity of such methods0 7ughes lists other forms of evidence for validity0 2onstruct, as in construct validity, he explains, <refers to any underlying ability &or trait* that is hypothesied in a theory of language ability= &"((>, p0>)*0 Eeliability

12

Fust as the validity coefficient of a test must be calculated to establish its level of agreement, so too must a tests reliability coefficient be calculated0 7ughes explains &"((>, p0>83>+* that reliability coefficients help design tests that are reliable regardless of testing conditions, test candidates, and scorers0 7ughes cautions though, <%o be valid a test must provide consistently accurate measurements0 !t must therefore be reliable0 # reliable test, ho'ever, may not be valid at all= &"((>, p06(*0 Even accepting the limitations of reliability, 7ughes explains that it is a necessary consideration, and in the same fashion of validity, may influence test construction more or less depending on the type of test0 So, standardiBed tests, 'hich may be of greater consequence to a candidate, likely require a higher reliability coefficient score than do local tests or other classroom assessments0 %he reliability coefficient is merely a comparison of at least t'o identical tests scores0 #ccording to 7ughes &"((>, p0A(*, splitting a test score in half to create t'o test scores, usually by splitting it by odd3 numbered and even3numbered items, is the most efficient method &also kno' as the split half method*, because it the eliminates variables that arise from giving the same test t'ice &the re3 test method* or by altering forms of the same test &the alternate forms method*0 7o'ever, this fails to account for changes in testing conditions that might affect outcomes0 %o address these variables, 7ughes recommends &"((>, p0A(3A)* that a standard error of measurement be calculated to find the test takers true scores &'hich equates to hisDher ability on the test*0 7ughes explains ho' to find the standard error of measurement, <%he calculation of the standard error of measurement is based on the reliability coefficient and a measure of the spread of all the scores on the test000=, so, <000the greater the reliability coefficient, the smaller 'ill be the standard error of measurement= &"((>, p0A)*0 #s he explains, this provides only a range of probability of ho' the test taker should perform on future identical tests, a range that is the original score plus and minus one, t'o, or three times the standard error of measurement0 %his information, he suggests, may help inform decisions about ho' test results should be interpreted depending on the tests importance0 So scorers of standardiBed tests used for academic purposes, or of tests for placement into courses of study may evaluate test takers scores based upon different ranges of the standard error of measurement0 !n the case of criterion referenced testing &2E%*, 'hich is a form of assessment typically applied to local tests, standard error of measurement may be too blunt, according to 7ughes &"((>, p0A"*0 2E% essentially allo's the scorer to efficiently categoriBe test results by cut3off points, or for example, <the point that divides MpassesM from MfailsM= &7ughes, "((>, p0A"*, to discern 'hether the test takers have achieved a set or sets of criterion0

13

#long 'ith reliability coefficients and the standard error of measurement, scorer reliability also impacts the overall reliability of a test, particularly on subHective test items like composition0 7ughes explains, <!f the scoring of a test is not reliable, then the test results cannot be reliable either= &"((>, p0A>*0 7ughes recommends using the same approach of calculating test reliability to calculate scorer reliability0 !deally, test reliability should be lo'er than scorer reliability0 %o prevent reliability discrepancies in scorers and tests, 7ughes advocates that test makers follo' a number of steps in test construction, test administration, and scoring processes, 'hich can be found in his book %esting for .anguage %eachers &"((>, p0AA36(*0 -ulcher notes that, <2lassroom tasks frequently look very different from the kinds of items and tasks that appear in standardised tests0 %he main reason for this, as 'e have seen, is the requirement that standardised tests have many items in order to achieve reliability= &"()(, p0/(*0 7e gathers, each item shapes the test takers ability, but since classroom assessment can be spread over longer durations and take advantage of open3ended tasks, reliability is of lesser concern0 <;ependability is the criterion3referenced correlate of reliability in standardiBed testing= &-ulcher, "()(, p01)*0 -ulcher quotes &"()(, p0/8* .antolf and @oehners vie's of reliability, validity, and dynamic assessment, the former concepts are assessment instruments that suggest performance and development arise from the individual, 'hereas the latter procedure is concerned 'ith the Gsocial individual0 2riterion D 4on3criterion Eeferenced %he Gap #s noted earlier, Breaux argues that Koreas educational curriculum lacks a focus on speaking0 2ertainly the %,E-. results support his claim0 %he issues that contribute to these include testing, a culture of traditional lecture teaching &specifically audiolingual and grammar3translation methodologies*, and obviously a lack of speaking opportunities0 Breaux claims to have developed 2BE to meet the needs of these learners0 Since 2BE has not been published, there is a great lack of both a'areness and research0 Given this gap, the underlying question of this research is, does Gunther Breauxs conversational fluency focused methods
14

for teaching Korean university students provide a suitable approach for teaching communicative English skills #ns'ering this question requires ans'ering the follo'ing questions$ )0 !s it possible to produce a valid and practical placement test that measures receptive and productive language skills "0 !s Breauxs speaking test valid, reliable, and practical, and can it track results as he claims >0 !s Breauxs claim that more speaking results in improved speaking true %he Significance

7ence the purpose of this research is to determine if it is possible to produce a valid and practical placement test that measures receptive and productive language skills0 %he study aims to validate Gunther Breauxs @lacement %ests &@%*, against the pre3validated .extutor %ests &.%*0 .% is designed to establish language competency by testing vocabulary siBe and depth of kno'ledge0 @% also attempts to measure these attributes using colloquial conversational questions, as 'ell as measuring course learning obHectives, like pronunciation and prepositional kno'ledge0 %he focus of this study aims to validate @%, 'hich is one of several cruxes of Breauxs teaching methodology, that 'ill be explored in detail in a future study0 %he direct implications of this research is the ability to quickly assess any set of learners quickly and provides the instructor 'ith a greater amount of flexibility in managing classes0 @resumably, a placement test could be used as diagnostics tests0 #lthough this study overlooks this possibility, Bro'n &"((>, p0A83A/* implies that this notion may be Hustified0 -inally, the exposure of kno'ledge gaps of a given group can assist the instructor in modifying hisDher syllabus to optimiBe for the Gs'eet spot of difficulty &7anford N Smith, "()>*0 %he ?ethod %he SubHects
15

%he study 'as conducted over a sixteen 'eek period in eight co3ed classes in Korea at Soonchunhyang 5niversity0 #mong the eighty3one male and thirty3six female students &))/ total*, ages ranged from nineteen to t'enty3seven, 'ith the average being t'enty3t'o0 ))" identified themselves as being from Korea, three from 2hina, and t'o failed to complete the field0 %hirty3one 'ere freshmen, seventy sophomores, t'elve Huniors, and four 'ere seniors0 Eleven 'ere enrolled in the 2ollege of 7umanities, fourteen in the 2ollege of Social Sciences, thirteen in the 2ollege of Business, t'elve in the 2ollege of 4atural Sciences, thirty3nine in the 2ollege of Engineering, t'enty3t'o in the 2ollege of ?edical Sciences, and seven in the 2ollege of ?edicine0 Students reported that, on average, they had had seven years of English education0 #lthough some reported having had no English instruction, ninety3four reported having received instruction at the high school level, and none had left the field that corresponds to that question blank, 'hich indicates some confusion0 %he students 'ere enrolled in English classes to meet a graduation requirement0 ,nly one class, 4ative English >, had students opted for a higher level course0 #lthough there 'as no placement testing, the ?edical 4ative English " class only accepted students from the 2ollege of ?edicine0 %he 2lass Structure #ttempts 'ere made to adhere as closely as possible to the methods and syllabus outlined by Breaux &"()>*$

16

SUMMATION 1. First day

I know the English ability and speaking ability of my students. From that point on, all my energies are to improve ability, not determine ability. 2. First week I change the students mindset to communicative speaking. Communication gets rewarded, not grammar. 3. Weeks 2 - 6 Students speak a lot, specifically, speed dating. One topic (Me), many partners. Communicate in class, learn to communicate at home. 4. Week 7 Midterm communicative speaking test. Weeks 9 - 13 More speaking. The class prepares students for the test, and the test better equips students for the class. 6. Week 14 Final communicative speaking test. Week 16 Improvement is measured, proven and shown on the big screen. Accuracy improves from speaking with better speakers, personal feedback comes from the transcripts.

Beginning on the first day of classes, students 'ere given Breauxs placement test, and introduced to the Gspeed dating activity &see belo'*0 %he second class mirrored the first day, only 'ith the .extutor test &discussed belo'* being given0 ,n the fourth class>, students conducted the speed dating activity in pairs and in groups of threes0 !n the last hour, students that had not completed Breauxs placement test or the .extutor test 'ere asked to stay and complete the tests, 'hile others 'ere allo'ed to leave0 !n each of the classes leading up to the midterm speaking test, instruction 'as brief and consisted of the follo'ing topics$ K Speaking strategies$ asking follo' up questions, using examples, using body language, and using partners or the instructor as resources0 K %ask completion$ ho' to use the questions, ho' to engage 'ith multiple partners, and ho' to go beyond the supplied questions0 K ?otivation and Hustification of methodology$ explaining format of the speaking test, explaining ho' speaking is a skill, and explaining ho' to improve speaking skills0 K ?iscellaneous$ home'ork completion, syllabus and grading, and other aspects of classroom administration0 #lthough Breaux did not specify content to be covered, he does stress &"()>* that the amount of instruction time should decrease to allo' students more time for production0 #lso, grammar instruction, he argues, is unnecessary since Korean learners 'ill have received plenty of grammar instruction before arriving at university, so it seems reasonable to assume that 'hat .ong terms as focus on -ormS &in 2ook "((1, p0>+* should be avoided0 Even though Breaux did not specify the teachers role, all of this leaves the teacher ample time to
3 %he third

class 'as canceled for Koreas annual harvest festival0

17

check students home'ork, and move about the classroom as a resource for students, or as a facilitator as 7arel defines &"((), p0)++* it in Eichards and Eodgers0 @ost midterm test, classes consisted of about forty minutes of 'arm3up speed dating activities, about fifteen minutes of activity instruction and setup, and forty3five minutes or more of activities0 Breaux did not go into detail as to the kinds of activities that are relevant, but does suggest that variety in activities can be used to drive repetition of content, 'hich in practice is paradoxical0 #fter half a term of repeating the same activities, it became apparent that greater variety in content and activities 'as needed to motivate and keep the students interested, especially in a t'o hour classroom setting0 !n addition to these curriculum alterations, 'ritten midterm and final tests based on the provided texts 'ere given as per the universitys requirements &in only the ?edical 4ative English " class 'ere Breauxs textbooks used*0 2lass ?aterials #s part of his presentation for 2BE, Breaux proposed using a set of classroom materials to assist in classroom management and activities0 %o prepare students for these tests, class time is devoted to semi3structured conversation0 Beginning from the first class, students engaged in speed dating, in 'hich pairs conversed using provided questions as conversational fodder, s'itching partners every five minutes0 %his continued for the first t'o classes, 'ith times increasing to ten minutes in the second class &Breaux structures his classes around t'o one3 and3a3half hour classes*0 %he questions are personal and topical, 'ithout being invasive to avoid a'k'ardness0 Ouestions are unordered, allo'ing students to skip questions0 !n the fourth class, students 'ere grouped into threes and made to speak for t'enty minutes0 %hese activities filled the remaining classes leading up to the midterm speaking test &class seven*0 !t is vague 'hat Breaux <increasing variety= implies, that is 'hether to vary group arrangements, content, times, or to provide something more akin to the 4atural #pproach0 Breaux has published several textbooks designed to facilitate activities, 'hich he promoted in his presentation, but he did not completely explain this aspect0 Breauxs FaBB English text books are meant to provide activities that aim to get students to use descriptors and photocopiable board games that recycle the questions from the speed dating activities0 #s

18

previously mentioned ho'ever, students interest in rehashing the same questions appeared to be 'aning, as -igure ) suggests0 -or the remainder of the term, spoken 'ord activities, like parlour games and drinking games &sans the drinking*, 'ere employed to motivate and stimulate and motivate, reemphasise the speaking strategies 'hich included asking follo' up questions and reasoning, and introduce ne' language structures0 %esting ?aterials

Eesearch ?aterials %he -rame of Eeference

%he Eesearch .imits

%he Eesearch Ouestion

%he %heoretical Basis

%he t'enty3minute speaking tests require students to conduct an impromptu conversation based on a single question in groups of three0 Several factors determine a students grade &ability*0 Breaux assigns values for <basic speaking ability,= <total vocabulary,= <total 'ords
19

spoken,= and the <number of topics covered= to determine overall speaking ability0 %he conversations are recorded, and then emailed to students, 'hich they must dictate and return to class the follo'ing 'eek0 %hese dictations are meant to provide self analysis, so each student can examine their performance0 @art of the examination process requires students to count their total number of 'ords spoken, find their five most common mistakes and fix them0 Students are also asked to list vocabulary they have used0 Breaux suggests that students may make mistakes in speaking that they 'ould not make on a 'riting test, and that by forcing students to observe their mistakes, they are being made conscious of them0 Breaux offers further input, by arranging meetings 'ith the speaking test groups after the dictations have been completed0 %hese meetings are an opportunity for the teacher to provide feedback to the students and offer them a chance to ask for clarifications, possibly, although Breaux makes no mention of this aspect, to manufacture .ongs -on-s &in 2ook "((1, p0A(*0 %he test is repeated for the final test, only 'ith different groups0 Groups are determined by the results of the midterm speaking test, matching students by score0 !n determining the midterm speaking test groups, Breaux relies on a placement test that he gives at the beginning of the class0 !t should be noted that the placement test is more of an amalgamation of the proficiency and placement tests that Bachman &)++(, p0AA3A8* explains are meant to test overall ability and establish students levels, respectively0 Breauxs placement test attempts to promptly measure grammar and vocabulary kno'ledge and productive and receptive skills0 7is thirty3minute multiple choice test is comprised of questions based on listening skills, preposition usage, and conversational listening accuracy0

20

Bibliography

21