Sheila Conrad

Professor Paula Winke

LLT 808
Spring 2014
Final Exam
After learning about the benefits of group orals in this course, I decided I would like to
introduce them in my own classroom. Reading, writing, and listening are skills that students can
practice somewhat easily on their own, but unless they have a native speaker as a friend or
family member, it can be difficult for them to find opportunities to practice speaking in the
Interpersonal mode at home. I wanted to be able to provide my students with more opportunities
to practice this mode while they are at school.
I created two group oral assessments, both intended for high school students enrolled in
Advanced Placement French Language and Culture. These students range in age from 16-18
years old. I plan to use the tests to assess students interpersonal speaking ability. Speaking in the
Interpersonal mode is a certainly a crucial skill for any language learner and is also a skill
assessed on the official AP Exam.
I plan to assess my students using an analytic rubric. They will be graded on a 20 pointscale. I often use 20-point scales in French class, because the French grade everything out of 20,
and I try to incorporate the culture as much as possible in my curriculum. The students will be
assessed using four categories: Task Completion, Fluency and Pronunciation, Vocabulary, and
Language Structures. The audio will be recorded, and I will listen to each recording several times
to provide as accurate a score as possible. The scores will go into a category weighted at 20%
in the gradebook, that of Speaking Assessments. Specifically, the test scores are used to
evaluate the students on their Interpersonal communication skills in French. Separate tasks will
be used to evaluate students on their Presentational communication skills.

One concern of mine is that that intensive training is needed for reliable assessment of
group orals. I have not yet had any sort of formal training on grading this type of task, but I do
plan to apply to be an AP reader in the summer of 2015, so I am hoping that this experience will
help me to assess students less subjectively.
There are many stakeholders involved with regards to assessments in AP courses. Parents
will likely be checking the gradebook and might be concerned about their childrens test scores.
Many will be spending money for their child to take the AP Exam, and they will want to make
sure he or she is well-prepared to earn a good score in order to earn college credit.
While perhaps not directly concerned with students individual grades, the administration
at my school is definitely concerned with AP scores. Our head principal is a strong proponent of
the AP Programs. Our students test scores are publicized for all of the staff to see. If my
students are able to improve on their Interpersonal communications skills as a result of the
introduction of group orals into the curriculum, their overall AP Exam scores may also improve.
I am also a stakeholder. I want my students to do well for their own sake, of course, but if they
are able to do well, it also benefits me because it helps promote my program.
The group oral assessments I have created will take up to 8 minutes, as was modeled in
the in-class examples. I will administer the tests in my own classroom. While in the pilot test for
the group oral, there were four students engaged in conversation, I would prefer for the groups to
be just three students, to provide more opportunities for students to talk. Students will be
speaking all at the same time in the classroom, to mimic the experience of taking the actual AP
Exam. Students will be able to view the test prompt on the other iPads available using Google
Drive and as well as on a print-out I will provide. Each group will record its conversation with

one of the student iPads, which are provided by the school, and the student with the video on
his/her iPad will send it to me afterwards.
I tested Group Oral 2 out on four students from my French IV class who volunteered
their time in class to try out the activity. They went into the hallways to do this. There were two
boys and two girls, and all were Juniors. They spoke for 6 minutes and 57 seconds. After they
came back into the room, with 5 minutes left in class, I informally asked them what they thought
and took some notes. They said they really liked the activity and would like to see more like it in
the future. They were all smiling and laughing when they came back into the room, and when I
listened to the audio later on, it was evident to me that they did enjoy it.
When I listened to the audio, I couldn't help but smile. I was very proud of my students
ability to interact and accomplish the task together, using negotiation of meaning. At times, the
students were even able to accomplish the difficult task of being humorous in a second language!
For example, when talking about the pros of being a waiter or a waitress, one student said,
There are no pros of this job, and everyone in the group laughed.
There was some English interference. I will have to work with my students on the skill of
circumlocution so that they are better equipped to handle the challenge of explaining something
when they cannot find the word. One student in particular (incidentally the only one in the group
who is not enrolled in AP French next year) was very guilty of resorting to English when she
didnt know a word, saying things such as les customers, lair conditioning, and les tips
sont non-existant (the tips are non-existant). She said the English words a different emphasis
in her voice without attempting even to pronounce them the way a French person would,
indicating that she knew these were not the correct French vocabulary words. I do think that if

she were actually being assessed, she would take the task more seriously and avoid using English
words. Because this was just a pilot test, she may have made herself a bit too comfortable.
The students continued to use the word pro to describe a positive aspect of a job. They
decided together that un pro would mean a pro, but this is not true of French. I had provided
a word for a pro in the prompt - un avantage - but this word was avoided completely during
the interaction. This problem could be avoided in the future by going over the prompt with the
students before the interaction takes place. I could directly teach the vocabulary for pro and
con provided in the prompt. I could also teach them the skill of noticing how vocabulary is
used in prompts and correctly applying these words on the AP Exam.
One other problem I noticed from the pilot was that one of the male students relied on
repetition of what the others were saying in order to communicate. While he may have just been
confirming that he understood what the others were saying, he did not produce very many
original utterances. I am hoping that reducing the number of participants to three per group will
help solve this problem.
Overall, the students were really able to shine. They discussed the pros and cons of each
job, choosing to move in sequential in order through the images. They provided personal and
practical reasons for avoiding or choosing certain jobs. For example, one student said of the
lifeguard position, Je ne veux pas tre responsable pour la vie d'un autre (I dont want to be
responsible for the life of another person), which was a very complex thought that he was able
to produce with perfect grammar. Another said, Je naime pas nager (I dont like to swim).
Others expressed it would be nice to have a job outdoors so they could tan.
Most of them thought working at the cinema would be nice because les films sont
gratuits (the movies are free), but one of the girls who actually works at the local cinema

assured them all that the job is horrible. One of the girls and one of the boys were really
pushing for the camp counselor job and were trying to convince the other boy, saying in French,
You could play sports, you could sing but the other boy responded with Cest tout ce que je
n'aime pas (This is everything that I dont like.) Again, they all laughed. In the end, they
decided that the mini-golf job was the best, because they could rigoler tout le temps (joke
around/have fun all the time) and bronzer (tan).
I was very pleasantly surprised, in particular, by one of my male students. He is usually
very quiet in class, but he performed excellently on this task. Perhaps it was that he was more
comfortable and confident speaking with his classmates as opposed to with me.
Thankfully, at the AP French level, most of my students will be at about the same
proficiency level. Students who struggle with French but want to continue past French IV usually
choose a different course option, that of French Culture & Conversation. I will likely allow
students to choose their partners for the Group Oral Assessments, because I want their
performances to be the best they can possibly be, and as I learned in class, familiarity helps
performance positively. Based on my students qualitative feedback as well as what I perceived
to be excellent performances, I plan to create more group oral assessments as well as some
formative group oral activities, at least one per unit in AP French.

Group Oral Assessment Rubric

Task Completion
5
Maintains the exchange with a series of responses that is clearly appropriate within the
context of the task
Provides required information (e.g., responses to questions, statement and support of
opinion) with frequent elaboration
4
Maintains the exchange with a series of responses that is generally appropriate within the
context of the task
Provides required information (e.g., responses to questions, statement and support of
opinion) with some elaboration
3
Maintains the exchange with a series of responses that is somewhat appropriate within the
context of the task
Provides required information (e.g., responses to questions, statement and support of
opinion)
2
Partially maintains the exchange with a series of responses that is minimally appropriate
within the context of the task
Provides some required information (e.g., responses to questions, statement and support of
opinion)
1
Unsuccessfully attempts to maintain the exchange by providing a series of responses that is
inappropriate within the context of the task
Provides little required information (e.g., responses to questions, statement and support of
opinion)

Fluency and Pronunciation

5
Fully understandable, with ease and clarity of expression; occasional errors do not impede
comprehensibility
Pronunciation, intonation, and pacing make the response comprehensible; errors do not
impede comprehensibility
4
Fully understandable, with some errors which do not impede comprehensibility
Pronunciation, intonation, and pacing make the response mostly comprehensible; errors do
not impede comprehensibility
3
Generally understandable, with errors that may impede comprehensibility
Pronunciation, intonation, and pacing make the response generally comprehensible; errors
occasionally impede comprehensibility
2
Partially understandable, with errors that force interpretation and cause confusion for the
listener
Pronunciation, intonation, and pacing make the response difficult to comprehend at times;
errors impede comprehensibility
1
Barely understandable, with frequent or significant errors that impede comprehensibility
Pronunciation, intonation, and pacing make the response difficult to comprehend; errors
impede comprehensibility

Vocabulary
5
Varied and appropriate vocabulary and idiomatic language
4
Varied and generally appropriate vocabulary and idiomatic language
3
Appropriate but basic vocabulary and idiomatic language
2
Limited vocabulary and idiomatic language

1
Very few vocabulary resources

Language Structures
5
Accuracy and variety in grammar, syntax, and usage, with few errors
Mostly consistent use of register appropriate for the conversation
Clarification or self-correction (if present) improves comprehensibility
4
General control of grammar, syntax, and usage
Generally consistent use of register appropriate for the conversation, except for occasional
shifts
Clarification or self-correction (if present) usually improves comprehensibility

3
Some control of grammar, syntax, and usage
Use of register may be inappropriate for the conversation with several shifts
Clarification or self-correction (if present) sometimes improves comprehensibility

2
Limited control of grammar, syntax, and usage
Use of register is generally inappropriate for the conversation
Clarification or self-correction (if present) usually does not improve comprehensibility

1
Little or no control of grammar, syntax, and usage
Minimal or no attention to register
Clarification or self-correction (if present) does not improve comprehensibility