Rubric of Speaking Assessment

Posted September 14, 2009 by kakaris
Categories: Uncategorized

untuk melakukan penilaian pada speaking skill, kita memerlukan instrument penilaian berupa rubrik. alat ini digunakan untuk memberikan penilaian yang lebih measurable  dan observable

beerikut ini contoh rubrik yang bisa digunakan sebagai acuan penilaian speaking. dan semoga bermanfaat…..!

Name :

Class/semester :

Number :

Proficiency Description

1

2

3

4

5

6

Accent

0

1

2

2

3

4

Grammar

6

12

18

24

30

36

Vocabulary

4

8

12

16

20

24

Fluency

2

4

6

8

10

12

Comprehension

4

8

12

15

19

23

Total Score

Note:

Conversion Table

Total Score

FSI Level

16 – 25

26 – 32

33 – 42

43 – 52

53 – 63

63 – 72

73 – 82

83 – 92

93 – 99

0 +

1

1 +

2

2 +

3

3 +

4

4 +

Speaking Proficiency Scale

(Oller)

1. Able to satisfy routine travel needs and minimum courtesy requirements. Can ask and answer question on topics very familiar to him; within the scope of his very limited language experience can understand simple questions and statements …

2. Able to satisfy routine social demands and limited work requirements. Can handle with confidence but not with facility most social situations including introductions and casual conversations about current events, as well as work, family, and autobiographical information …

3. Able to speak the language with sufficient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversations on practical, social and professional topics. Can discuss particular interests and special fields of competence with reasonable ease; comprehension is quite complete for a normal rate of speech; vocabulary is broad enough that he rarely has to grope for a word; accent may be obviously foreign; control of grammar good; errors never interfere with understanding and rarely disturb the native speaker.

4. Able to use the language fluently and accurately on all levels normally pertinent to professionals needs. Can understand and participate in any conversation within his range of experience with a high degree of fluency and precision of vocabulary; would rarely be taken for a native speaker, but can respond appropriately even in unfamiliar situations; errors of pronunciation and grammar quite rare; can handle informal interpreting from and into the language.

5. Speaking proficiency equivalent to that of an educated native speaker. Has complete fluency in the language such that his speech on all levels is fully accepted by educated native speakers in all of its features, including breadth of vocabulary and idiom, colloquialisms, and pertinent cultural references.

Rating on Scale

a. Accent

1. Pronunciation frequently unintelligible.

2. Frequent gross errors and a very heavy accent make understanding difficult, require frequent repetition.

3. “Foreign accent” requires concentrated listening and mispronunciation lead to occasional misunderstanding and apparent errors in grammar or vocabulary.

4. Marked “foreign accent” and occasional mispronunciations which do not interfere with understanding.

5. No conspicuous mispronunciations, but would not be taken for a native speaker.

6. Native pronunciation, which no trace of “foreign accent”.

b. Grammar

1. Grammar almost entirely inaccurate except in stock phrases.

2. Constant errors showing control of very few major patterns and frequently preventing communication.

3. Frequent errors showing some major patterns uncontrolled and causing occasional irritation and misunderstanding.

4. Occasional errors showing imperfect control of some patterns but no weakness that causing misunderstanding.

5. Few errors, with no patterns of failure.

6. No more than two errors during the interview.

c. Vocabulary

1. Vocabulary inadequate for even the simplest conversation.

2. Vocabulary limited to basic personal and survival areas (time, food, transportation, family, etc.)

3. Choice of words sometimes inaccurate, limitation of vocabulary prevent discussion of some common professional and social topics

4. Professional vocabulary adequate to discuss special interest; general vocabulary permits discussion of any non-technical subject with some circumlocutions.

5. Professional vocabulary broad and precise; general vocabulary adequate to cope with complex practical problems and varied social situation.

6. Vocabulary apparently as accurate and extensive as that of an educated native speaker

d. Fluency

1. Speech is so halting and fragmentary that conversation is virtually impossible.

2. Speech is very slowly and uneven except for short or routine sentences.

3. Speech is frequently hesitant and jerky; sentences may be left uncompleted.

4. Speech is occasionally hesitant, with some unevenness caused by rephrasing and grouping for words.

5. Speech is effortless and smooth, but perceptibly non-native in speed and evenness.

6. Speech is on all professional and general topics as effortless and smooth as a native speaker’s.

e. Comprehension

1. Understand too little for the simplest type of conversation.

2. Understands only slow, very simple speech on common social and touristic topic; requires constant repetition and rephrasing.

3. Understand careful, somewhat simplified speech directed to him, with considerable repetition and rephrasing.

4. Understands quite well normal educated speech directed to him, but requires occasional repetition and rephrasing.

5. Understands everything in normal educated conversation except for every colloquial or low-frequency items, or exceptionally rapid or slurred speech.

6. Understands everything in both formal and colloquial speech to be expected of an educated native speaker.

Scoring Rubric for Writing

NO

COMPONENTS

RANGE

DESCRIPTION

1

CONTENT

30 – 27

26 – 22

21 – 17

16 – 13

EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: related ideas

GOOD: occasionally unrelated ideas

FAIR TO POOR: very often unrelated ideas

VERY POOR: irrelevant ideas

2

ORGANIZATION

20 – 18

17 – 14

13 – 10

9 – 7

EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective and well organized

GOOD: occasionally ineffective, weak transition and incomplete organization

FAIR TO POOR: lack organization

VERY POOR: little or no organization

3

VOCABULARY

20 – 18

17 – 14

13 – 10

9 – 7

EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: effective word choice

GOOD: mostly effective word choice

FAIR TO POOR: frequently error in word choice

VERY POOR: mostly ineffective word choice

4

LANGUAGE USE

25 – 22

21 – 18

17 – 11

10 – 5

EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: grammatically correct

GOOD: mostly grammatically correct

FAIR TO POOR: frequently error in grammar

VERY POOR: very often error in grammar

5

MECHANICS

5

4

3

2

EXCELLENT TO VERY GOOD: few errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing

GOOD: occasionally errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing

FAIR TO POOR: frequent errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing

VERY POOR: dominated by errors in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing

 

TOTAL SCORE

   

Hello world!

Posted March 5, 2009 by kakaris
Categories: Uncategorized

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.