Introduction

Learning different languages, in the current socio-historical context, is a necessity, due to the economic and cultural development achieved by societies. This learning makes it possible to see and understand the world in a new way (^{ECKERT; FROSI, 2015}), expanding the possibilities of learning and fostering critical sense and autonomy.

In the educational field, this linguistic reality takes into account both the mastery of the mother tongue and the development of communicative competence in other languages, allowing the performance in different situations, face-to-face and virtual. In this context, the act of communicating is considered a fundamental competence (^{MONTEIRO et al., 2013}) that has the oral language as a vehicle to enhance social, international, professional, and business relations.

Among the pedagogical implications related to the development of communicative competence, in the context of language teaching and learning, we highlight the evaluation process, a complex subject, in which aspects that can be considered subjective or imprecise coexist, such as the nervousness of the students and the tiredness of the listeners/interlocutors (^{BARQUERO DÁVANZO; UREÑA SALAZAR, 2015}) and that need to be widely discussed.

For ^{Jetté (2017}), assessing orality is not a simple task, even less when it comes to assessing oral interaction, due to the complexity of the process, even for more experienced teachers. Although orality is worked in different ways during language classes, it is considered difficult to systematize it, due to the difficulty in defining criteria to measure the development of oral competence, especially interaction in the language-target that involves other processes, such as understanding and oral production (^{SILVA, 2018}).

This is a reflection of the existing gaps in teaching evaluative practices, such as in the teaching of the Spanish language (hereinafter LE), especially in contexts of extension courses and in the form of Free Courses, offered in Brazilian educational institutions, a scenario in which the authors' teaching experiences are effective. Among the pedagogical implications and difficulties surrounding the teaching-learning process, we highlight the assessment of communicative competence in the language and the certification of students, according to the levels of proficiency achieved.

From this scenario, the need arises to elaborate new proposals that can assist the teaching work, raising the guiding question of this research: How can we evaluate the performance of students of the Spanish language in the ability of oral interaction, considering the context of teaching in free and extracurricular courses? In this sense, we have as main objective, to develop an evaluative proposal, and from its implementation and analysis, to verify the main contributions and limitations found.

To this end, we have developed a proposal to evaluate oral interaction in LE, guided in three stages: compilation of a Matrix of descriptors for evaluation of oral interaction in LE that comprises descriptors and levels of proficiency; elaboration of a didactic activity, with emphasis on communicative and technological immersion and construction of a (self)evaluation rubric, based on previously adopted criteria, descriptors and levels of proficiency, to assist in the identification of students' progress and difficulties and to foster the active participation of the learner in the process of evaluation and reflection on the achievements.

This proposal was developed and implemented with the use of different technological resources for the realization of a hybrid communicative activity that mixes the classroom and the virtual, and is simulated through an interview by web conferencing, with a proposal of immersion in the language, in the communicative and technological context.

The methodological procedures involved the bibliographic review of the pertinent literature, conducted based on the theme addressed, in which we evidenced studies on the evaluation of oral interaction in the target language (^{ESCOBAR; NUSSBAUM, 2010}; ^{MORAL MANZANARES, 2013}; ^{JETTÉ, 2017}), communicative competence (^{HYMES, 1972}; COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2001); and the use of headings for evaluation (^{MARTÍNEZ-ROJAS, 2008}; ^{BARQUERO DÁVANZO, UREÑA SALAZAR, 2015}; ^{MENDONÇA; COELHO, 2018}).

Besides, the methodology comprised the application and analysis of this proposal, performed using the Case Study method (^{YIN, 2015}). The data collection was performed using a questionnaire and the analysis, with a quantitative and qualitative approach, relies on the aid of the Sphinx Lexical research software. The target public investigated comprised a class of students of Spanish, intermediate level, from the Language Center, at Federal Institute of Education, Science, and Technology of the Amazon.

Oral interaction and teaching, learning and evaluation processes of LE

In this study, the term oral interaction covers the primary processes of oral production and understanding (COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2001), the socio-cultural conditions of the context involved or simulated, as well as the attitudes necessary for an oral action that enables communication in different contexts, legitimizing the communicative use of the language.

The development of oral interaction aims to improve communicative competence in different linguistic and cultural contexts, focusing on communication needs. This process takes into account social aspects, as well as the relationship between the communicator and the interlocutor, since communication leads to greater mobility, promotes exchange, stimulates mutual understanding and strengthens collaboration (COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2001).

Interaction is directly related to pragmatic competence, taking into account the functional use of linguistic resources (production of linguistic functions, speech acts), as well as the domain of discourse, cohesion, and coherence, the identification of types and forms of text, the irony, etc. (COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2001).

Whereas communication is a process that depends on the social context and recognizes the interdependence of these two aspects, the learning process of a foreign language involves appropriate methodologies and the application of didactic strategies that facilitate the learner’s development of their linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic skills, according to their communicative needs.

In this process, it is important to have a clear definition of the interational contents taught and evaluated, taking into account the positive impact of an evaluation model that considers the communicative process (^{JETTÉ, 2017}). Thus, we consider the creation of an evaluative proposal in the light of three dimensions: communicative, cognitive and sociocultural (^{ROMÉU ESCOBAR et al., 2007}), given the process of teaching-learning languages as a result of the triad formed by discourse, cognition, and society, based on cognitive and communicative processes that occur in social communication situations, in different cultural contexts. In addition to the communicative dimension, we also take into account the context of technological immersion, with emphasis on the use of different digital resources.

This implies promoting new practices that can assist teachers in the assessment of students' communicative skills, especially aimed at improving the teaching-learning process in Free Courses, a modality that grows in Brazil, due to the creation and expansion of language centers or similar structures, belonging to Brazilian universities, institutions of the Federal Network of Professional, Scientific and Technological Education and some Secretariats of Education. These training spaces help democratize the provision of courses to improve the linguistic competence of members of the university community and the community in general, with a view to concern for language teaching and learning, promoting multilingualism and promoting the internationalization of federal educational institutions.

The current needs and demands regarding the development of communicative competence in other languages, in educational institutions, reflect the importance of the role of these training spaces to democratize access to additional languages (^{COELHO; TEIXEIRA, 2020}). According to Freire³, “these centers have a dual role. At the same time that they pluralize the offer of languages to the community, they bring that community back to the public space of language teaching, reconstructing a fundamental relationship” (COELHO; TEIXEIRA, 2020).

According to ^{Freitas (2010}, p.1), at the present, "the main demand is for young people and adults who want to learn the language to use it in their professional activities or for university students who want to prepare themselves for the labor market". According to the author, under these conditions, this public seeks language-free courses, as it is already outside the school environment. Still, in the case of university students, there are few degrees that offer the Spanish Language in their bars, becoming potential clients for free courses, from an extensionist perspective.

According to ^{Freitas e Souza (2018}, p.32), free courses are "institutions that are not within the scope of control of state educational bodies", however, there is an encouragement of government initiatives for these institutions to be responsible for language teaching, production of teaching materials and/or continued teacher training in public schools of Basic Education. Some examples of these situations are present in the federal, state, and municipal spheres.

Assessing oral interaction in LE in this modality implies the need to contribute to the learning and development of skills necessary for language proficiency, in particular conversational competence, whereas evaluation is an operation that does not dissociate itself from the process and can enhance the internalization and verification of linguistic knowledge (CABRERA; JARA; GÓMEZ, 2013).

In this sense, we highlight the importance of collecting and analyzing inferences about a given criterion (communicative behavior); the relevance of using instruments to evaluate these criteria; and the potential of simulations, since these strategies expose students to communicative situations that can occur in real life and can, therefore, be used in the process of evaluating the target language.

These aspects take into account the need to evaluate a student’s proficiency, which can be performed, from communicative activities that allow the student to demonstrate language proficiency and be able to interact. For this, it is important to simulate real interaction situations. In this scenario, simulation practices can contribute to consolidate new proposals, focusing on oral competence in the target language, through interactions that can be enhanced both inside and outside the formal classroom context. These interactions are relevant and necessary, considering that despite the emphasis given, in the school, to the development of the four skills, the oral performance of students, in different scenarios, is not compatible with the intended results of proficiency.

In this context, the instruments may present other types of challenges for the assessment of oral skills (^{JETTÉ, 2017}). The mastery of these skills can be evaluated by different instruments (PANTOJA, 2012), considering the need to measure and assign grades.

However, taking into account the subjectivity of the oral production evaluation process (^{QUEVEDO-CAMARGO; GARCÍA, 2017}), it is necessary to select instruments that enable measures that can reduce the effects of this subjective nature of oral production.

Among some instruments that can decrease subjective impact, we highlight the rubrics, opting for an evaluation mediated by pre-established criteria. According to Brookhart (2013 cited in ^{MENDONÇA; COELHO, 2018}, p.109), "an item is a coherent set of criteria on the work to be performed by the student that includes descriptions of performance levels (performance)". Through this tool, it is possible to highlight dimensions that make up a situation or activity to be solved; allow students to direct their efforts to obtain higher levels of language proficiency; enhance the cognitive and self-regulatory processes, insofar as they take a critical stance, concerning the evaluation of their progress in language learning, as well as direct efforts to achieve the desired performance.

The justification for the creation of headings is due to the "search for fair, equitable, valid and transparent evaluation procedures, with training purposes and democratic principles" (PICÓN-JÁCOME, 2013 cited in ^{MENDONÇA; COELHO, 2018}, p.109). This Authors evidence this type of evaluation as a new paradigm of positive nature for education.

Method

As a result of the objective of this research, with a descriptive approach, the Case Study method is used, focusing on the understanding of a case in-depth, on the multiple sources of data collection and the analysis of the case through the description of the theme, from a qualitative perspective (^{YIN, 2015}).

On the other hand, from a quantitative perspective, we used a questionnaire, as a technique for data collection, to highlight the main contributions and limitations of the evaluative proposal, based on the experience experienced by students in the evaluation. This analysis of the proposal was performed by students of a Spanish language course, of intermediate level, of the Language Center, of the Federal Institute of (omitted for evaluation) and teacher of the class.

The initial stage of the research comprised a bibliographic search, for the definition of the theoretical construct, taking into account different databases: Scielo, Open Access Scientific Repositories of Portugal (RCAAP), Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (BDBTD), Dialnet and Google Academic.

The methodological procedures also involve the theoretical-methodological design of the evaluative proposal that comprised three stages: the planning phase, which involves the compilation of a Matrix of descriptors for evaluation of oral interaction in LE; the creation of communicative activity for the development of oral interaction in LE and the elaboration of a rubric and validation of the proposal.

The proposal validation process was carried out by a committee of judges, composed of experts from different institutions in the country. The function of the committee was to evaluate the elements that make up the rubric (criteria, descriptors, and levels), and the activity. In summary, the evaluation focused on an analysis related to the relevance (relevance and representativeness) and clarity (intelligible by the reader) of each item, considered as fundamental aspects for the construction of evaluative instruments (^{CRESTANI; MORAES; SOUZA, 2017}).

Based on the results of this evaluation, changes were made to the instrument to determine the permanence or exclusion of the items. The evaluator committee’s considerations allowed us to perform: i) textual corrections to improve the clarity of the items analyzed; ii) exclusion of items; and iii) inclusion of new descriptors.

The application of the proposal had use of two language laboratories and different tools: computers, Google Classroom platform; WhatsApp; instant messaging platform and video chat - Hangouts; webcam, microphone for interaction; camera for video recording; headset, speaker, data show, whiteboard and a printed heading for (auto) evaluation.

Among the strategies used during the application, the highlight is the recording of a video that was sent to the students, by email, with the interactions, so that they could analyze the speeches and identify the main flaws, regarding the evaluated criteria. This action also allowed the teacher to review the students' evaluation.

Theoretical and methodological design of the evaluative proposal

The preparation of the proposal to evaluate oral interaction in LE comprised three phases (Figure 1). The first concerns the compilation of a Matrix of descriptors for evaluation of oral interaction in LE organized according to the language skills - comprehension, production and oral interaction (COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2001) and structured according to student performance levels, based on the proficiency scales used in official certifications. The second is aimed at the elaboration of an activity that includes the use of technological resources for the development of oral interaction in LE. The third presents the creation of a rubric to evaluate oral interaction in LE.

Source: Adapted from ^{Soares and Coelho (2019})

FIGURE 1 Composition of the evaluative proposal 

The Matrix comprises a set of descriptors organized by linguistic activities and levels, composing a database of descriptors to evaluate oral interaction in LE. These descriptors come from the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), international language certifications (DELE, CELU, SIELE), and language examination parameters developed by the Association of Language Examiners in Europe (ALTE). Its objective is to be used as a tool to assist in the elaboration of communicative activities, as well as planning and elaboration of evaluative instruments, since it enables the teacher to identify the necessary elements, taking into account the communicative proficiency in the language.

The activity was developed from diagnosis made with students to verify the main difficulties encountered about the use of language. According to the results, the main difficulty was the "participation of an interview in Spanish", considered a communicative activity for which they were not prepared to maintain an oral interaction in the target language. Because of this, the design of the proposal was conceived in an interview format. This strategy is characterized as a technique for the development and evaluation of oral interaction. (BORDÓN, 2008; PANTOJA, 2012). We illustrate the activity to develop oral interaction in the language, in Table 1:

The interview enables the practice of spontaneous dialogues, the exchange of information, the use of linguistic repertoire and grammatical structures, based on the theme explored so that students can express opinions. Thus, we sought to meet the communicative objectives of the language in an interview simulation activity, in which a native speaker (guest participant, from Chile, from the city of Valparaíso), participates as an interviewer, enabling the learner to have an authentic experience of language interaction. The realization of this dynamic was performed through Hangouts. Figure 2 shows the organization of spaces for the application of the evaluative proposal.

Source: ^{Soares (2019}, p.69)

FIGURE 2 Division of stations 

It was necessary to organize the room, given that the activity takes place in a virtual environment, mediated by a digital platform for communication, through audio and video. To this end, three stations were implemented. Station 1 represents the direct connection to the guest, characterized by the space occupied by the native, through the Hangouts platform. Station 2 was occupied by an interviewed student who played a candidate for an interview. This station was organized in a private room, with a connection to Hangouts, intended exclusively for the interviewed student. Station 3 is composed of the other students who accompany and participate in the interactions, via Hangouts.

Finally, the construction of an evaluation rubric, which was developed taking into account five criteria of analysis: content, coherence and cohesion, vocabulary, fluency, and pronunciation. For each criterion, a set of descriptors and the level of proficiency of the students were established, based on the QECR (Table 2).

Results

The proposal to evaluate oral interaction in LE was composed of five criteria: content, coherence and cohesion, vocabulary, fluency, and pronunciation. For each criterion, students and teachers could evaluate the performance of the activity, based on descriptors corresponding to levels A1 (Beginner), A2 (Basic), and B1 (Intermediate). This division takes into account the levels of performance evidenced in the CEFR and the main international certifications for the Spanish language (DELE, CELU, SIELE), as well as the parameters for language examinations developed by the Association of Language Examiners in Europe. There were two evaluations. One was made by the students (Figure 3), and another by the teacher, presented in Figure 4.

Source: ^{Soares (2019}, p. 80)

FIGURE 3 Results of the self-assessment 

It should be noted that the purpose was to concentrate as many students as possible in the Intermediate level (B1), considering that the students who made the evaluation proposal come from an Intermediate level language course. In general, regarding the criteria, students point to a self-assessment directed at level A2. Among the criteria evaluated, "fluency" is the main criterion in which most students do not consider reaching the highest level of (intermediate) proficiency.

On the other hand, the data from the teacher’s evaluation present distinct results, taking into account direct observation in the classroom (Figure 4).

Source: ^{Soares (2019}, p. 80)

FIGURE 4 Criteria assessed by the teacher  

In this evaluation, we identified that the performance in four criteria indicates a predominance of the level (B1). It is possible to highlight fluency and pronunciation as criteria that require a higher degree of attention and demand, taking into account that it is an activity of oral interaction in the target language. Especially in the proposal presented, these aspects are indispensable, considering the oral communicative competence, since the activity is performed with a native speaker, which may require the student, fluidity in speech and clarity in pronunciation.

Regarding the analysis of the "vocabulary" criterion, a single student was evaluated with the elementary level (A1). It is worth noting that this student, in particular, admitted not having prepared for the interaction activity, a fact that may have impaired his performance in the communicative activity, since the lack of information to discuss the topic proposed in the interview could limit the student to discuss only what was of his knowledge about the subject⁴.

Another item that makes up the evaluation of the proposal refers to "coherence and cohesion", a criterion that deals with the ability to link words, elements that make it possible to construct a linear and related sequence of information. The results about this criterion indicate that most students were able to express themselves articulately, besides connecting a series of short, distinct, and simple elements, constructing some linear sequences. Students who are not at the desired level were able to communicate some ideas and information and were assisted by the teacher, to express what they intended to say, using more frequent connectors to express your information and interact with other colleagues and the Chilean speaker.

These differences found in the evaluations performed by teachers and students highlight the difficulty in evaluating oral interaction, highlighting the complexity of this process. Subjectivity is pointed out by several authors as one of the main obstacles in the evaluation of oral language. For ^{Ferraz (1994}, p. 2) "accepting subjectivity in evaluation is still the most effective way to try to control it, avoiding the illusion that objectivity is possible and that the student is what the test measures". It is necessary to accept subjectivity in evaluation for a better approximation of reality.

However, despite recognizing the subjectivity and challenges of the process, it is possible to use tools, such as rubrics, based on criteria and descriptors, to assist the teacher in the management of the results and the students, the identification of own performance with activity.

The questionnaire applied to students also showed other results, such as the effectiveness of the proposal for the evaluation of oral interaction through the application of the proposal using the rubric that allowed the evaluation of different criteria, descriptors, scale of levels, and allowed the understanding teacher expectations for each evaluated criterion.

The students highlighted as the main benefits of the evaluative proposal: i) study of important and necessary themes for the development of oral interaction in LE; ii) web conferencing; iii) preparation for the use of language with natives or with people from different cultures; iv) LE practice in aspects of language such as vocabulary, pronunciation, fluency; vi) the possibility of self-assessment of oral interaction in LE; and v) the use of digital technologies in the activity, how to use the Hangouts tool. In general, the results reinforce the advantages of using a differentiated evaluative proposal, which escapes from the traditional conduct of interviews, composed of questions and answers in the teacher-student dynamics.

According to the students: "it is relevant to know one’s development (Student 1)", however, "it is not an easy task because it is another language (Student 3)", besides "to demand a lot of sincerity, since it must be understood as an important element in the process of learning a language (Student 4)".

The students' evaluation also pointed out the main difficulties in carrying out the proposal: i) lack of knowledge of the tool; ii) lack of experience in performing self-assessment; iii) nervousness; iv) shyness; v) obstacle to communication with a native; vi) and the forgetfulness of some words.

Among these aspects, nervousness can also be one of the problems for evaluation, as stated by ^{Barquero Dávanzo e Ureña Salazar (2015}). In a student’s report, we found that the real exposure caused discomfort, and time was needed to overcome it: “As it was the first time I did not know how to do it, then I relaxed” (Student 4). Other challenges are nervousness and timidity: “As was noticeable, I was quite nervous during the interview. If I could go back and correct my mistakes, I would face that challenge again, but less nervous and more confident in speaking in the language studied. (Student 1). More specific difficulties were also reported, such as: “hablar con un nativo sobre política; contextualizar las palabras que debo usar, olvidar de algunas palabras” (Student 6).

Based on these results, we highlight the importance of "the student having information about his or her self-learning process, that is, whether he or she is achieving the objectives that were set" (^{GARCÍA GARCÍA; TERRÓN LÓPEZ; BLANCO ARCHILLA, 2010}, p.291, our translation). To this end, the authors highlight the relevance of having a series of instruments that can assist in the evaluation process.

In addition to the challenges faced by students, we also highlight the main limitations for the implementation of the proposal. According to the class teacher, one of the main difficulties was ensuring that the student carried out the previous study on the proposed theme, in addition to encouraging the participation of students in the activity.

To ensure that students get involved, everyone should access the guidelines left in the Google Classroom, and send the teacher an outline with possible questions and answers on the chosen topic for language corrections, by email and / or WhatsApp. Thus, the class teacher could accompany the students, perform feedbacks, and solve doubts. Another commented challenge refers to the need for specific places for the implementation of the proposal and the proper functioning of the Internet.

Conclusion

In this article, we highlight a proposal to evaluate oral interaction in LE that comprises three components: a Matrix of descriptors for evaluation of oral interaction in LE; an activity with emphasis on communicative and technological immersion; and a rubric for self-evaluation of student performance, for the development of five criteria related to language: content, vocabulary, coherence and cohesion, fluency and pronunciation.

An educational product can assist in the process of evaluating this communicative ability and be applied to other pedagogical realities. In this sense, it can contribute, especially with teachers who work in extension courses and in the modality of Free Courses, and face constant challenges regarding the assessment of oral interaction in LE and identification of the level of proficiency in the target language.

We highlight among the main contributions of the proposal, we highlight: i) promotion of a differentiated activity in the classroom, through Hangouts and web conferencing experiences, ii) moment of linguistic, communicative and technological immersion, made possible by on-line contacting with a native speaker and use of technological resources; iii) change in teaching-learning routine leveraging autonomous studies and extra-class dedication to research development; iv) digital skills development, associated with the development of communicative competence, through the use of different technological resources, such as the Google Classroom, WhatsApp and Hangouts platform; and v) fostering self-assessment, allowing learners to value their productions in the language, identify the main difficulties and understand the progress achieved, based on pre-defined criteria and descriptors.

Despite the contributions, the proposal also presented some limitations, such as the need to conduct research and prior study on the proposed theme and knowledge of the vocabulary necessary for language interaction; the requirement of specific spaces for the activity to be developed, and the Internet as a basic condition for the implementation of the practice.

Another aspect that can be taken as a limitation for the application of the proposal takes into account the use of the rubric, considering some of the limitations pointed out by scholars for the use of this tool: requirement of dedication and supervision by the teachers (^{RODRÍGUEZ GALLEGO, 2012}), and the time spent in its elaboration, in case it needs to be adapted to other contexts, based on the characteristics of the students, education levels, and compliance with the criteria and descriptors used (^{MORAL MANZANARES, 2013}).

Because of these limitations, it highlight the need to expand future studies on the assessment of oral skill in Spanish, to conduct further research on the main theoretical and methodological aspects involving the teaching process, learning and evaluation, as well as adapting the proposal created and implementing new evaluative experiences of the target language in other contexts and teaching-learning.