Abstract
Teaching speaking is one of the challenging dimensions of teaching English as a foreign language. In the Turkish educational setting, students are exposed to English from second grade at the primary level until the first grade at tertiary level. Although the exposure to English is intensive, it is observed that students are unable to solve language-related problems even at tertiary level. A recent British Council report (2015) revealed that students recruited at Turkish universities have an inadequate level of speaking proficiency relative to the standards of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The reason may be multi-faceted; however, investigation of assessment practices of English instructors may shed light on this problem. This study aims to investigate tertiary-level English language teachers’ perceptions and practices of speaking assessment. Personal Construct Theory (PCT) forms the basis for this case study. The data was collected via repertory grids, semi-structured interviews, and classroom observation. Focus grid analysis was conducted to analyze and interpret the data. The findings of the study reveal that the participants do have individualized beliefs regarding assessment of speaking, which necessitates training for teachers on classroom assessment to raise their awareness regarding commonality of practice in in-class speaking assessment.
About the authors
Meryem Özdemir-Yılmazer is a PhD student in the Department of English Language Teaching at Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey. Her research interests are language assessment, dynamic assessment, in-service and pre-service teacher education.
Yonca Özkan is an associate professor in the Department of English Language Teaching at Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey. She teaches undergraduate and graduate course in teacher education and second/foreign language teaching methodology. Her research focuses on pre-service language teacher education, technology integration into language teacher education, and language assessment.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by Çukurova University Research Fund under the Project Number SDK-2016-7468. We would also like to thank to English language teachers who participated in this study. Finally, we are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and the editors for their constructive feedback.
References
Assessment Reform Group. 1999. Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.Search in Google Scholar
Bannister, Donald, Richard Bell & Fay Fransella. 2004. A manual for repertory grid technique, 2nd edn. Chichester: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Berg, Jan & Francis Rumsey. 1999. Spatial attribute identification and scaling by repertory grid technique and other methods. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Audio Engineering Society, Rovaniemi, Finland, 10–12 April. http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/563/1/fulltext.pdf (accessed 4 August 2017).Search in Google Scholar
Black, Paul & Dylan Wiliam. 1998. Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80(2). 139–148.10.1177/003172171009200119Search in Google Scholar
Borg, Simon. 2003. Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching 36(2). 81–109.10.1017/S0261444803001903Search in Google Scholar
British Council. 2015. The state of English in higher education in Turkey. Ankara: Yorum Basın Yayın.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. New York: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar
Chappuis, Stephen & Richard J. Stiggins. 2002. Classroom assessment for learning. Educational Leadership 60(1). 40–43.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Liying, Todd Rogers & Hu. Huiqin 2004. ESL/EFL instructors’ classroom assessment practices: Purposes, methods, and procedures. Language Testing 21(3). 360–389.10.1191/0265532204lt288oaSearch in Google Scholar
Chinda, Bordin. 2009. Professional development in language testing and assessment: A case study of supporting change in assessment practice in in-service EFL teachers in Thailand. Nottingham: The University of Nottingham dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Council of Higher Higher Education. 2008. Regulation on principles to obey in foreign language education in higher education and teaching in foreign language. http://www.yok.gov.tr/web/guest/icerik/-/journal_content/56_INSTANCE_rEHF8BIsfYRx/10279/18036.Search in Google Scholar
Davison, Chris. 2004. The contradictory culture of teacher-based assessment: ESL teacher assessment practices in Australian and Hong Kong secondary schools. Language Testing 21(3). 305–334.10.1191/0265532204lt286oaSearch in Google Scholar
Donald, Freeman. 2002. The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching 35. 1−13.10.1017/S0261444801001720Search in Google Scholar
İlin, Gülden. 2014. Sendan: A case study. International Jourmal of Language Academy 2(2). 3–13.10.18033/ijla.78Search in Google Scholar
Inbar-Lourie, Ofra & Smadar Donitsa-Schmidt. 2009. Exploring classroom assessment practices: The case of teachers of English as a Foreign Language. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 16(2). 185–204.10.1080/09695940903075958Search in Google Scholar
Kagan, Dona M. 1992. Professional growth among pre-service and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research 62. 129−69.10.3102/00346543062002129Search in Google Scholar
Kelly, George Alexander. 1991 [1955]. The psychology of personal constructs (reprint). London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Kırkgöz, Yasemin. 2008. A case study of teachers’ implementation of curriculum innovation in english language teaching in Turkish primary education. Teaching and Teacher Education 24(7). 1859–1875.10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.007Search in Google Scholar
Kothari, C. R. 2004. Research methodology. New Delhi: New Age International.Search in Google Scholar
Kozulin, Alex & Erica Garb. 2001. Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-risk students. School Psychology International 23. 112–127.10.1177/0143034302023001733Search in Google Scholar
Leung, Constant. 2004. Developing formative teacher assessment: Knowledge, practice and change. Language Assessment Quarterly 1(1). 19–41.10.1207/s15434311laq0101_3Search in Google Scholar
Lincoln, Yvonna S. & Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. California: SAGE.10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8Search in Google Scholar
Messick, Samuel. 1996. Validity and washback in language testing. ETS Research Report Series 1. 1–18.10.1002/j.2333-8504.1996.tb01695.xSearch in Google Scholar
Poehner, Matthew E. & James P. Lantolf. 2005. Dynamic assessment in the language classroom. Language Teaching Research 9(3). 233–265.10.1191/1362168805lr166oaSearch in Google Scholar
Rea-Dickins, Pauline. 2004. Understanding teachers as agents of assessment. Language Testing 21(3). 249–258.10.1191/0265532204lt283edSearch in Google Scholar
Sendan, Fehmi & John Roberts. 1998. Orhan: A case study in the development of a student teacher’s personal theories. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 4(2). 229–244.10.1080/1354060980040203Search in Google Scholar
Shaw, Mildred L. G. 1980. On becoming a personal scientist. London: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Shepard, Lorrie. A. 2000. The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher 29(7). 4–14.10.3102/0013189X029007004Search in Google Scholar
Teasdale, Alex & Constant Leung. 2000. Teacher assessment and psychometric theory: A case of paradigm crossing? Language Testing 17(2). 163–184.10.1177/026553220001700204Search in Google Scholar
Torrance, Harry & John Pryor. 1998. Investigating formative assessment: Teaching, learning and assessment in the classroom. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Torrance, Harry & John Pryor. 2001. Developing formative assessment in the classroom: Using action research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal 27(5). 615–631.10.1080/01411920120095780Search in Google Scholar
Yin, Muchun. 2010. Understanding classroom language assessment through teacher thinking research. Language Assessment Quarterly 7(2). 175–194.10.1080/15434300903447736Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
