Volume 4, Issue 3 (9-2019)                   IJREE 2019, 4(3): 21-41 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Zare Toofan Z, Vaseghi R, Zare M. Iranian EFL Learners’ Perceptions toward Paper Assessment in Mid-term and Final Exams in an English Language Institute. IJREE. 2019; 4 (3)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-247-en.html
Department of English Language and Literature, Islamic Azad University, Ayatollah Amoli Branch, Amol, Mazandaran, Iran.
Abstract:   (3977 Views)
Assessment has been taken to demonstrate that learning is aligned with external standards which is almost related to students’ goals in a curriculum in English language teaching and it plays an integral role in the success of language learning program that is following by so many EFL teachers. Consistency in scoring (mid-term and final exams) highly depends on the way of conducting paper assessment, validation of the process, reliability, experience of teachers, and different interpretation of assessors to make justified decision. Hence, the present study was an attempt to probe Iranian EFL learners’ perceptions toward paper assessment in mid-term and final exams in a language institute. To this end, a total of 100 participants (50 males and 50 females) between ages of 15 to 28 at intermediate level, were selected based on Nelson Proficiency Test. Data were collected through scores of two sequential semesters and a Likert scale questionnaire. The findings of this study indicated that there is a direct positive relation between learners’ viewpoints on paper assessment and their progress. Generally speaking, paper assessment in both formative and summative assessment would be a great progress among female and male English language learners.
Full-Text [PDF 988 kb]   (886 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

1. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Razavieh, A., & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to research in education. Florence. KY Thomson/Wadsworth.
2. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford University Press.
3. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental consideration in language testing. Oxford University Press.
4. Bachman, L. F. (2007). What is the construct? The dialectic of abilities and contexts in defining constructs in language assessment. In J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. Turner, & C. Doe (Eds.), Language testing reconsidered (pp. 41-71). Ontario, CA: University of Ottawa Press. [DOI:10.2307/j.ctt1ckpccf.9]
5. Bell, C., Steinberg, J., Wiliam, D., & Wylie, C. (2008). Formative assessment and teacher achievement: Two years of implementation of the keeping learning on track program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New York, NY.
6. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25, doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678 [DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678]
7. Biggs, J. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning: a role for summative assessment? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 103-110, doi: 10.1080/0969595980050106 [DOI:10.1080/0969595980050106]
8. Brown, J. D., Hudson, T., Norris, J., & Bonk, W. (2002). An investigation of second language task-based performance assessments. Technical report (University of Hawaii at Manoa. Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center); #24.
9. Brown, G. T. L., Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., Chan, J. K. S., & Yu, W. M. (2009). Assessment for student improvement: understanding Hong Kong teachers' conceptions and practices of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 347-363, doi: 10.1080/09695940903319737 [DOI:10.1080/09695940903319737]
10. Darling Hammond, L., & McCloskey, L. (2008). Assessment for learning around the world what would it mean to be internationally competitive. PDK International Journal, 90(4), 263-272. doi: 10.1177/003172170809000407 [DOI:10.1177/003172170809000407]
11. Dwyer, A. M. (1998). The texture of tongues: Languages and power in China. In William Safran, ed., Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 4.1/2: Special Issue. Nationalism and Ethnoregional Identities in China. Frank Cass, pp. 68-85. [DOI:10.1080/13537119808428529]
12. Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interaction with ESL students in a content based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247-273. [DOI:10.2307/3588504]
13. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2003). Writing teachers as assessors of writing. In Kroll, B. (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (p.p. 162-189). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139524810.012]
14. Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 24-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00151.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00151.x]
15. Hattie, J. A., & Jaeger, R. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. A deductive approach. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 111-122. doi: 10.1080/0969595980050107 [DOI:10.1080/0969595980050107]
16. Kandlbinder, P. (2009). Key concepts in postgraduate certificates in higher education teaching and learning in Australasia and the United Kingdom. International Journal for Academic Development, 14(1), 19-31, doi: 10.1080/13601440802659247 [DOI:10.1080/13601440802659247]
17. Karpov, U. V., & Heywood, H. C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky's concept of mediation: Implication for instruction. American Psychologist, 53(1), 27-36. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.53.1.27 [DOI:10.1037//0003-066X.53.1.27]
18. Klenowski, V. (2011). Assessment for learning in the accountability era: Queensland, Australia. Studies in Education Evaluation Journal, 37(1), 78-83. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.003]
19. Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. SAGE Journal, 23(1), 112-127. [DOI:10.1177/0143034302023001733]
20. Lam, R. (2015). Language assessment training in Hong Kong: implications for language assessment literacy. Language Testing, 32(2), 169-197. [DOI:10.1177/0265532214554321]
21. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the part into the future. JAL, 1(1), 49-72. doi: 10.1558/japl. [DOI:10.1558/japl.]
22. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2010). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11-33. [DOI:10.1177/1362168810383328]
23. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the foreign language classroom: A teacher's guide. University Park, PA: CALPER Publications.
24. Lopez Mendoza, A. A., & Bernal Arandia, R. (2009). Language testing in Colombia: A call for more teacher education and teacher training in language assessment. Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., 11(2), 55-70.
25. Malone, M. E. (2013). The essentials of assessment literacy: Contrasts between testers and, users. Language Testing, 30(3), 329-344. [DOI:10.1177/0265532213480129]
26. Mcmillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40-49.
27. Office of Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: OECD Publishing.
28. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
29. Perrenoud, P. (1998). L'évaluation des élèves. Paris/Bruxelles: De Boeck Université Collection Pédagogie en développement. Revue des sciences de l'éducation, 26(3), 483-716.
30. Purpura, J. E. (2016). Second and foreign language assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 190-208. [DOI:10.1111/modl.12308]
31. Randel, R. et al. (2011). The importance of the verbal shift handover report: A multi-site case study. Int J Med Inform, 80(11), 803-12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.08.006. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.08.006] [PMID]
32. Rea-Dickins, P. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall: identifying processes of classroom assessment. Language Testing, 18(4), 429-462. [DOI:10.1177/026553220101800407]
33. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144. [DOI:10.1007/BF00117714]
34. Scarino, A. (2013). Language assessment literacy as self-awareness: Understanding the role of interpretation in assessment and in teacher learning. Language Testing, 30(3), 309-327. [DOI:10.1177/0265532213480128]
35. Sebatane, E. M. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning: a response to Black & Wiliam. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 123-130. doi: 10.1080/0969595980050108 [DOI:10.1080/0969595980050108]
36. Schneider, M. C., & Meyer, J. P. (2012). Investigating the efficacy of a professional development program in formative classroom assessment in middle school English language arts and mathematics. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 8(17), 1-24.
37. Schneider, M. C., & Randel, B. (2010). Research on characteristics of effective professional development programs for enhancing educators' skills in formative assessment. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 251−276). New York: Routledge.
38. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Vingsle, C. (2014). Formative assessment: teacher knowledge and skills to make it happen (Licentiate dissertation). Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-91247
40. Vogt, K., & Tsagari, D. (2014). Assessment literacy of foreign language teachers: findings of a European study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(4), 374-402. doi:10.1080/15434303.2014.960046 [DOI:10.1080/15434303.2014.960046]
41. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81. [DOI:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015] [PMID]
42. Wiliam, D. (2006). Does assessment hinder learning? Speech delivered at the ETS Europe Breakfast Salon. Institute of Civil Engineer, UK, London.
43. Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track: Classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. In F. K. Lester, (ed.), Second handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (pp.1053-1058). Greenwich CT: Information Age Publishing.
44. Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551-575. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807 [DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2022 CC BY-NC 4.0 | International Journal of Research in English Education

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb