In English teaching, speaking assessment has always been one of the most challenging tasks for teachers. Not because speaking is unimportant—but because it is highly susceptible to subjective judgment.
- The same response may receive different scores from different teachers
- Outgoing and confident students are often rated more highly
- Quiet but diligent students may struggle to have their progress recognized
As a result, many teachers find themselves asking the same question:
Is it possible to assess students’ speaking skills fairly and effectively without relying on subjective or personal impressions?
Why is traditional speaking assessment so subjective?
In many classrooms, speaking assessments are still conducted through methods such as:
- Calling on students to respond in class
- Midterm or final oral exams
- Scoring based on the teacher’s overall impression
While these approaches may feel intuitive, they come with clear limitations:
- Teachers cannot listen carefully to every student at the same time
- Performances cannot be replayed or reviewed later
- Scoring criteria are often difficult to explain to students or parents
As a result, grades are given, but learning progress is rarely documented or preserved.
What does “non-subjective” speaking assessment really mean?
Non-subjective assessment does not mean removing teacher judgment. Instead, it means shifting the foundation of assessment from “impression” to “evidence.” More objective speaking assessments typically include:
- Clear and consistent scoring criteria
- Recorded results that can be replayed and compared
- The ability to track long-term student progress
- Minimal variation caused by different evaluators
In other words, the focus is no longer on who sounds better, but on whether specific performance criteria are met.
Five practical ways to reduce subjectivity in speaking assessment
1️⃣ Use clear, actionable rubrics
Rather than giving a single overall score, speaking performance can be broken down into concrete components, such as:
- Whether pronunciation affects comprehension
- Whether required content is completed
- Whether speech rate is appropriate
- Whether complete sentences are produced
When criteria are clearly defined, assessment becomes more consistent and easier to explain to students.
2️⃣ Replace real-time grading with recorded responses
Live grading is especially vulnerable to time pressure and emotional bias. With recorded speaking tasks, teachers can:
- Listen multiple times for accuracy
- Compare current performance with past recordings
- Assess responses at different times and in different contexts
This alone significantly reduces errors based on first impressions.
3️⃣ Turn speaking performance into observable data
Instead of relying on a single score, it is more meaningful to examine what students actually demonstrate, such as:
- Length of responses or readings
- Vocabulary usage
- Pronunciation consistency
- Completion of required time or tasks
These measurable elements provide objective, comparable evidence of performance.
4️⃣ Compare students to themselves—not to each other
The core of speaking development lies in continuous practice and accumulation. When teachers can observe that a student’s:
- Sentences are getting longer
- Pauses are becoming fewer
- Pronunciation is clearer than before
Assessment shifts from ranking students to recognizing growth—an especially important shift for introverted or slower-progressing learners.
5️⃣ Use AI support to improve assessment consistency
More teachers are now using AI-powered speaking platforms to support:
- Pronunciation accuracy analysis
- Fluency and pacing evaluation
- Consistent and repeatable assessment standards
AI does not replace teachers. Instead, it allows teachers to focus on feedback and instructional guidance, rather than repetitive scoring.
Classroom practice in action: an example using Sensay
In practice, AI-powered English speaking platforms like Sensay are designed specifically to address the issue of subjectivity in speaking assessment. With such tools, teachers can:
- Assign speaking tasks through student recordings
- Evaluate performance using consistent assessment criteria
- Review each student’s speaking history and progress over time
- Base assessment on data and recorded evidence rather than impressions
This approach not only improves fairness, but also helps students clearly understand where and how they are improving.
Benefits for teachers and schools
- Clear assessment criteria that reduce disputes
- Results that are traceable and comparable over time
- Reduced grading workload
- Stronger support for formative assessment and long-term tracking
Fair speaking assessment is about method, not intuition
Speaking ability cannot be defined by a single performance. When assessment becomes more objective and trackable, students are more willing to speak and practice.
Effective speaking assessment is not about finding mistakes but about recognizing progress.