assurance of anonymity; collected data are more uniform and standard; and they are more accurate. In addition, the Likert Scale was used for the part 3 of questionnaire as it is considered as an appropriate and commonly used scale to elicit the extent of agreement with some statements of opinion or attitude (Henning 1987: 23). Brown and Rogers (2002: 120) also point out that ‘Likert scales are generally useful for getting at respondents’ views, judgments, or opinions about almost any aspect of language learning.’ A five point Likert Scale is appropriate for it enables the participating teachers to select a neutral alternative. Alternatively, if they record their opinions within a 4 point scale (which normally consists of: strongly agree/believe, agree/believe, disagree/disbelieve, and strongly disagree/disbelieve) then no neutral alternative is available; they are forced to express a positive or negative opinion. The data produced using the Likert Scale can also be effectively managed with statistical tools to present the general trends of the investigation. The results of the questionnaire were used as a basis for the development of the interview questions for the second investigation of the study. By means of this, certain specific aspects of classroom-basedassessment might be examined further, or certain issues generated by the first investigation might be addressed through the teachers’ explanations. Thus, the questionnaire and the interview are complementary to each other. The detailed explanation of the questionnaire is as follows.
Kirgoz & Agcam, investigated teachers’ perceptions about different types of corrective feedback . Thirty six EFL teachers at 20 different state primary schools in Adana were interview to find out their opinions about corrective feedback and its different types. The study found that teachers believed that students mistakes should be corrected. Half of the participants believed that feedback should be given immediately while 30% thought it should be delayed. Moreover, half of the participants believed that the feedback should be given by the teachers while 33% thought students should correct their own mistakes. On the other hand, some teachers stated that a teacher should give feedback when the student is not able to correct the mistake on his own. 22% teachers thought all types of mistakes should be corrected while others suggested that only mistakes of formation and phonological errors should be corrected. Results indicated that explicit correction, recasts and repetition were the most common form of feedback. Nevertheless, elicitation was the most effective form of feedback in EFL classroom.
CBA is, in part, unique to individual classrooms in the sense that in each classroom the teacher, and the student group is unique and so assessment needs to be unique to that particular teacher and class. This uniqueness does not make a direct comparison between schools‟ and student performance an easy process (Maxwell 2001), but it does require teachers to understand the criteria on which they are making judgements about students‟ performance (Earl, 2012). The claim is that although students may have different tasks to perform, there is a need to have a set of grade or level standards on which to evaluate the students‟ outputs. For example, while students located in different classrooms may read different novels and story books as part of the Fiji English curriculum, all the students across the different classroom and even schools still need to be able to discuss the plot, character development, theme of the text, the writing style of the author, and the vocabulary used in those texts. The moderation across different novels can be achieved when teachers have an understanding of the required Year standards (Fiji Ministry of Education, 2007). The result of each classroomassessment is not intended to standardise the program across schools, but to compare standards and the level of consistency of student performance between students. The criteria for benchmarking students‟ progress on a task needs to be consistent although the task can have variability (Maxwell & Cumming, 2010).
Valentina Morgana is Adjunct Professor of English Linguistics in the Faculty of Language Sciences and Foreign Literature at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan, Italy. Her research includes mobile language teaching and learning in secondary and higher education, technology-mediated task-basedlanguage teaching and the use of virtual exchanges in higher education internationalization.
One aim of this study is to understand the way in which teachers perceive pragmatics and pragmatic knowledge. It is of particular importance to understand teachers’ perceptions because their observations inform and shape their teaching methods and classroom practice. According to Jia, Eslami, and Burlbaw (2006), it is extremely helpful to understand teachers’ perceptions because teachers are deeply engaged in teaching and learning processes and they apply educational principles and theories to their teaching practices. Borg’s (2003; 2015) review of research about language teacher cognition identified the relationship between cognition and prior language learning experience, cognition and teacher education, and cognition and classroom practice. In Vietnam’s context, limited research regarding teachers’ perceptions has been documented. For example, in a case study using narrative frames to explore high school Vietnamese teachers’ attitudes to Task- BasedLanguage Teaching (TBLT), Barnard and Nguyen (2010) studied 23 Englishteachers from three urban high schools. The findings revealed a mismatch between teachers’
The Report on Turkey National Needs Assessment of State School EnglishLanguage Teaching prepared by the British Council in cooperation with TEPAV (The Economic Policy of Research Foundation of Turkey) in 2014 has indicated that English is taught as a subject at Turkish state schools rather than a language of communication. In the report, this finding is identified as one of the five major factors that ‗lead to the failure of Turkish students to speak and understand English on graduation from High School‘. The following are the other factors acknowledged in the report in concern: (I) teacher-centred/ textbook-centred learning and grammar based testing, (ii) classroom management, (iii) lack of differentiation regarding needs, interests, levels of students, and (iv) rigidity of the inspectorate. Our study is intended to scrutinize whether this is the case in the primary schools located in one province of Turkey which is located in the southern part.
At the level of research and evaluation, in Phase II and Phase III large-scale studies were undertaken into teachers’ and students’ perceptions, teachers’ and students’ EnglishLanguage Competence and teachers’ classroom practice. Phase III studies were referenced to the baselines established in the initial studies carried out in Phase II. As well as providing evidence of Programme outcomes, these studies informed the design and refinement of the Programme itself as it developed, and enabled EIA to contribute to the wider knowledge base of education and international development. Relationship between the study and National Teacher Development Programmes Experience of working with the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) indicated that existing capacity was insufficient to secure both (a) a strong impact on the students or teachers and (b) the full institutionalisation of EIA approaches within the national education infrastructure beyond the project end. The project therefore formulated the Phase IV action plan whereby instead of rolling out the Programme through DPE’s Subject Based Training for primaryteachers, and the Total Quality Initiative (TQI) In- Service Teacher Development Programme for secondary teachers (the existing GoB teacher development Programmes), a partially institutionalised mode of delivery would assure the quality of the implementation of the Programme and therefore the learning outcomes, in 2015. This partially institutionalised approach saw existing GoB Programmes of one-off teacher training events in primary and secondary supplemented by a period of school-based teacher development provided through EIA. This combination, described below, is the approach examined in this study. Primary: Subject Based Training through PEDP III
Assessment of students is an essential part of instruction in both teaching and learning. With the recognition of alternative assessment methods, classroomassessment has gained attention focusing on learning of students. However, high-stakes testing turns classroomassessment into teachers’ high stakes decisions, ignoring the development of learners. In the context of language teaching at tertiary level, school of foreign languages serves as a gatekeeper by deciding on whether new students are proficient enough to start their professional education. Therefore, these schools impose a proficiency exam whose impact is relatively high-stakes. Thus, this study aims to have a descriptive investigation of the classroomassessment practices of instructors by considering the purpose, methods, and procedures of assessment and compares the context between state and private universities. The data was collected through survey questionnaire which includes both multiple choice and open-ended questions. Based on the quantitative and qualitative data, the results depicted that uniformity regarding classroomassessment practices of the instructors was observed; however, to what extent this uniformity embraces formative assessment practices needs to be further explored. The study also implies instructors’ need for such training that involves theoretical and practical aspects of classroomassessment at both pre-service and in-service level.
Besides these studies, few studies have been conducted to investigate the development of various test types for YLLs. Fleuquin (2003) provided a detailed account of the development of the classroom-based achievement EFL test for YLLs in Uruguay. Included in the question types were multiple choice and cloze test items and some writing tasks. In another study, Hasselgreen (2000) focused on the assessment of the YLLs English ability in the context of Europe and by reference to the Council of Europe’s recommendations and its material in the Common European Framework of Reference and the European Language Portfolio. In this particular study, questions are raised as to how far the special needs of YLLs are being catered for by assessment practices in European schools with a special focus on Norwegian schools.
The way schools systems function may also create challenges for Hispanic students. It has been reported that some of the current teaching practices prevalent in schools that serve Hispanic EnglishLanguage Learners are connected to the underachievement of Hispanic students (Padron, Waxman, & Rivera, 2002). Haberman (1991), a professor of curriculum and instruction, coined the term, “pedagogy of poverty” (p. 291). This pedagogy is consistent with the direct instruction model of teaching, a model that focuses on teacher acts only (Haberman, 1991). These teacher acts are systematic and exclude real life acts of pedagogy: “giving information, asking questions, giving directions, making assignments, monitoring seatwork, reviewing assignments, giving tests, reviewing tests, assigning homework, reviewing homework, settling disputes…” (Haberman, 1991, p. 291). This form of instruction is generic for all students and it does not encourage students to perform to their academic potential. A teacher directed environment accompanied by student compliance breeds unreceptive resentment that may create school resistance among students (Haberman, 1991).
Under this theme, the study generally reflects on the second main research question, main methods the faculty members use in their classroom. The current assessment practices vary in Baghlan Higher Education Institution, given the subjects that are taught and teachers’ exposition to different forms of assessment methods. Students responded that they performed project activities as they were expected to go outside the class and do research about the topic they were assigned. In addition, some students mentioned that some of their teachers relied only on mid- term and final-exams. A fourth year female student from the language department (LD) shared, “Some of our teachers rely on the final and mid-term exam that causes students to not study the lessons daily”. However, a junior female student from NSD said that some of their teachers assigned group projects in their classes and students prepared a chapter as a result of their work. Students refer to chapter as students’ collaborative or individual work on a topic that teachers assign them on a project. Likewise, another senior female student from LD supported:
Patton (2015) explained that qualitative research looks into the meaning making process and is often personal as the researcher is the instrument for inquiry. Qualitative research begins with the researcher’s interest, background, experience, training, skills, competency in interpersonal relationships, capacity for empathy as well as cross-cultural sensitivity which helps one to engage with the chosen research area to study. In addition, the researcher’s credibility would likely influence reflec- tion on the whole process of the research, world view, fieldwork and data analysis of the research project. The researcher’s reflection on the findings and connecting it to his or her world view is a part of the qualitative methodology (Patton, 2015). Maxwell (2009) explained that the research design on quantitative studies usually have fixed, standard arrangements of research methods with their own logic concerning which research design and methods to employ. With reference to qual- itative studies, they are often not easily categorized based on limited features and thus it is difficult to clarify the interrelationship of components in the research de- sign (Maxwell, 2009). On the other hand, there are models which present a logical design with progression of stages beginning from formulating a research problem to generating theories and conclusions (Creswell, 2013b). Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) explained that such models do not adequately represent the process of qual- itative research. Instead, qualitative research should be a reflexive process which operates at every stage in any study (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995).
rally, the school teachers provided fewer assessment areas than the university teachers, and their answers included more predicable and more obvious areas of language proficiency: grammar, vocabulary and the four communicative skills, with few teachers mentioning pronunciation and class participation (2 and 4 out of the 45 teachers, respectively). It was the university teachers (though few of them) who mentioned less tangible, more specific areas of as- sessment, such as content, logic, creativity and critical thinking. Interestingly, the university teachers stressed the assessment of their students’ knowledge of the system (grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation) more heavily than the development of their communicative skills, while for the school teachers the frequency of mentioning both the system (apart from pronunciation) and the four communicative skills was rather equal. Moreover, the findings suggest that the Polish teachers assessed the knowledge of the language system consi- derably more that the native-speaker teachers, which may reflect the cultural or attitudinal differences and at the same time differences in the components taught by particular teachers. What the respondents admitted to assessing probably reflected what they focused on in their teaching.
Considering the opportunity that the mediator (instructor) has in interacting and providing the right feedback for the learners, the debate of what kind of feedback is best to provide is still debated. Having explicit versus implicit feedback has long been a contentious issue, and many studies have tried to shed light on different aspects of these two methods of providing feedback for language learners. The present study, therefore, has tried to operationalize corrective feedback within a dynamic assessment framework. That is, instead of summarizing the learners’ achievement at the end of a course or school semester (or even year), the major aim was to provide them with an immediate and contextual feedback so as to make correction more effective for their learning and assessment. Since the most common practice in language classrooms in Iran is following the guidelines provided by Communicative Language Learning Approach, and error correction is implemented implicitly; the urge to introduce both a new approach (sociocultural approach, here DA) and a framework for error correction to the context seemed to be an important issue to be addressed. This way, by integrating the corrective feedback with DA, the authors had in mind to focus on the students’ upcoming development rather than the assessment of their past L2 grammar acquisition.
In order to automatically identify responses that have technical issues (e.g., loud background noise) or are otherwise not scorable (e.g., empty re- sponses), a decision tree-based filtering model was developed using a combination of features derived from ASR output and from pitch and energy in- formation (Yoon et al., 2011; Jeon and Yoon, 2012). The filtering model was tested on the scor- ing model evaluation data, and obtained an ac- curacy rate (the exact agreement between the fil- tering model and a human rater concerning the distinction between scorable and non-scorable re- sponses) of 97%; it correctly identified 90% of the non-scorable responses in the data set with a false positive rate of 21% (recall=0.90, precision=0.79, F-score=0.84).
are the best. As a result, the effectiveness of FA can vary greatly, depending on which methods the teacher uses and what population of students the teacher uses them on. There are differences not only in the size of benefits that are achieved (one method can generate more of benefit x than another method), but also in the kind of benefits that are achieved (one method generates benefit x, another method generates benefit y). Moreover, the empirical data which these efficacy claims are based on is often highly suspect: it is either dated, unpublished, methodologically flawed or the authors are biased. With such variance and lack of data, it is perhaps not a good idea to leave the choice of methods solely up to teachers, as the amount of pedagogical skill and theoretical knowledge may not be sufficient to make the right choices (Bennett 2011: 6-19). The dangers of this ambiguity become especially apparent as FA begins to get more widely implemented in schools around the world. Teachers and policymakers, Bennett argues, do not have the same level of understanding as pioneering authors and cannot replicate their successes. It is therefore quite a paradox that different researchers’ attempts at solving this problem with their models can instead lead to further complications.
performance, homework assignments, and short in-class tests requires teachers to have some sense of the range of performances they can expect (i.e., a set of performance descriptors indicating different levels of linguistic ability). Teachers are free to use any system of performance descriptors they feel is appropriate, consistent with district policy and the practice of their colleagues in the school. The descriptors should address the four aspects of language development – speaking/listening, reading, and writing. Two sample rating instruments listing performance descriptors for language development have been provided on the following pages. Classroomteachers may find these helpful in identifying students who may require ELL services or in tracking the progress of designated ELL students who have been placed in their mainstream classes. Some districts have also developed their own rating instruments for teachers to use. Teachers can find out about these from their district offices.
The present study aims at assessing the linguistic competence of EFL (henceforth English as a foreignlanguage) intermediate school teachers. The study is limited to the teachers of English who teach at the intermediate day schools for boys and girls in the city of Ramadi schools during the academic year 2012-2013. To achieve the purpose of the present study, it is hypothesized that there is no significant difference between the mean scores of intermediate school teachers' achievement, on one hand and the theoretical mean scores of the linguistic competence test, on the other hand. Also, it is hypothesized that there is no significant difference in the linguistic competence between male and female EFL teachers. The researcher constructed a test as the main tool in this study for collecting data . The sample of this study includes 56 EFL teachers (28 male and 28 female) from the intermediate schools in Ramadi which has been randomly selected. The EFL teachers of the sample have been subjected to the linguistic competence test. The collected data has been analysed by using t-test formula. The findings reveal that there is a significant difference between the mean scores of intermediate school teachers' achievement, on one hand and the theoretical mean scores of the linguistic competence test, on the other hand. Concerning the second hypothesis, results reveal that there is no significant difference in the linguistic competence between male and female EFL teachers. On the basis of the findings, the study suggests a number of conclusions and recommendations.
The traditional view of ELTPC was chiefly a problem of practice in the classroom whereby a teacher develops teaching situation to function and creates conditions for learning through knowledge, methods, and actions. Oldsjo (2010) asserts that this view is a very poorly constructed reasoning that does not include a scientific attitude towards Englishlanguage teaching and learning. Promoting the traditional concept of pedagogical competence that considers it as merely teaching skill or ability, Thomas (1987) adds three more dimensions to ELTPC, namely management, preparation, and assessment. He adds that teaching is not the only determining factor; teacher's managerial and disciplinary, preparatory and planning, and assessment and monitoring abilities are also critical. Likewise, Olsson, Martensson, and Roxa (2010) certify that pedagogical competence enjoys a much broader concept than that of only teaching skill, and that the components of pedagogical competence can be divided into overlapping types illustrated in Kolb's (1984) model. In this model, pedagogical competence involves four essential aspects of pedagogical competence, namely, pedagogical practice or actual teaching activities related to student learning, observation of teaching and student learning, theory or theoretical knowledge of teaching and student learning, and planning as a means for improved pedagogical practice.
The review of relevant literature for this research showed that studies which have already been conducted into teachers’ grammar knowledge are based mostly on what teachers say they know or do not know about grammar in general. Only two studies were found which attempted to discover actual lack of knowledge of specific grammar items. These were Kömür (2010) and Andrews (1999) (refer to Literature Review chapter of this thesis). In the case of Kömür (2010), the study was conducted with non-native English speaker student teachers in Turkey and did not report on any list of grammar items, but rather on the respondents’ intended strategies to overcome their individual grammar difficulties after their fourth year practicum. Andrews’ (1999) study gave some actual items as examples; however, there was no definitive list of items in which teachers needed further professional development. Andrew’s study took place almost 20 years ago, and the situation could have changed since then. Furthermore, Andrews’ study took place in Hong Kong, and was more concerned with the differences between student teachers and teachers who were already practising at that time. It was also noted that some of the teachers in that study were native speakers and some were not. The aim of this current study is to investigate how prepared specialist teachers of Englishlanguage (native or near native speakers) are to teach grammar, that is, to discover the specifics as they apply in a particular Australian university Englishlanguage teaching institute. A related question is whether the preparation for teaching that those teachers have undergone impacts on their willingness to teach grammar.