Geleneksel Sınavlardan Dört Dil Becerisinin Değerlendirilmesine: Türkiye’de e-TEP Sınavına Giren Bireylerin Algıları Üzerine Nitel Bir Araştırma

Abstract

Türkiye’de yakın zamanda uygulamaya konulan Elektronik İngilizce Yeterlik Sınavı (e-TEP), ağırlıklı olarak alıcı dil becerilerini ölçen çoktan seçmeli formatlara dayalı önceki İngilizce yeterlik sınavlarından önemli ölçüde ayrılmaktadır. Dinleme, okuma, konuşma ve yazma becerilerini değerlendiren e-TEP, ulusal düzeyde uygulanan, dört beceriye dayalı bilgisayar tabanlı bir sınavdır. Bununla birlikte, sınava giren bireylerin sınava erişim, sınavın uygulanması ve puanlama süreçlerine ilişkin deneyimleri ile sınavın daha geniş eğitsel etkilerine yönelik algıları hakkında sınırlı bilgi bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, sınava giren bireylerin e-TEP’e ilişkin deneyim ve algılarının anlaşılması ve sınavın algılanan güçlü ve zayıf yönleri ile eğitsel sonuçlarına ilişkin görüşlerinin ortaya çıkarılması amaçlanmıştır. Nitel betimsel araştırma deseninin benimsendiği çalışmada, e-TEP’e katılmış 15 kişiyle gerçekleştirilen yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerden elde edilen veriler Refleksif Tematik Analiz kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları üç ana tema altında toplanmıştır: (1) Sınav Öncesi Güçlükler, (2) Sınav Sırasındaki Güçlükler ve (3) Sınav Sonrası Güçlükler. Sınav öncesinde katılımcılar; sınav ücreti, sınav merkezlerindeki sınırlı kontenjan, coğrafi erişimin kısıtlı olması, resmî hazırlık materyallerinin yetersizliği, akademik içeriğin zorlayıcılığı ve geleneksel YDS/YÖKDİL sınav stratejilerinin yanı sıra bilgisayar tabanlı ve dört beceriye yönelik sınav hazırlığına duyulan ihtiyaç konusunda çeşitli güçlükler dile getirmiştir. Sınav sırasında ise katılımcılar zaman yönetimi, mola verememe, uzun süre oturmaya bağlı zihinsel ve fiziksel yorgunluk, eş zamanlı konuşma görevlerinden kaynaklanan gürültü, teknik aksaklıklar, sınav arayüzünün sınırlılıkları ve bireylerin bilgisayar okuryazarlığı düzeylerinin performansları üzerindeki olumlu veya olumsuz etkileriyle ilgili güçlükler yaşadıklarını belirtmiştir. Sınav sonrasında dile getirilen konular arasında puanlamaya ilişkin şeffaflığın yetersizliği, insan veya makine tarafından gerçekleştirilen değerlendirmenin nihai puanlar üzerindeki olası etkisine ilişkin belirsizlik, puanların açıklanmasındaki gecikmeler, farklı sınav katılımcısı grupları arasında puanların eşdeğerliği ve akreditasyonu ile e-TEP’in katılımcıların akademik ve mesleki gelişimleri üzerindeki olası etkileri yer almıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları, e-TEP’in Türkiye’de İngilizcenin dört becerisinin değerlendirilme biçiminde önemli bir dönüşümü destekleme ve dört dil becerisini daha kapsamlı ve iletişimsel bir yaklaşımla değerlendirme açısından önemli bir potansiyele sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.

Keywords

• e-TEP
• dört beceri temelli değerlendirme
• İngilizce yeterlik sınavı
• bilgisayar tabanlı sınav
• aday görüşleri
• geri etki

From Traditional Testing to Four-Skills Assessment: A Qualitative Study of Test-Taker Perceptions of the e-TEP in Türkiye

Abstract

Launched recently in Türkiye, the digital version of the Test of English Proficiency (e-TEP) is a break from previous English proficiency testing methods in Türkiye, which have focused mainly on receptive multiple-choice formats. The e-TEP is a national, four-skills, computer-based test that assesses listening, reading, speaking and writing ability. However, little is known about the experiences test-takers have had with respect to access, administration and scoring, and with respect to potential impact in terms of their larger educational impacts. In this study the researcher sought to understand test-taker experiences and perceptions of the e-TEP and to gain insights into the perceived strengths, weaknesses and educational implications associated with the e-TEP. Adopting a qualitative descriptive design, the study drew on semi-structured interviews with 15 e-TEP test-takers and analysed the data using Reflexive Thematic Analysis. From the study three major themes emerged: (1) Pre-Examination Challenges, (2) Challenges During the Examination, and (3) Post-Examination Challenges. Test-taker concerns prior to taking the test included exam costs, limited capacity at test centre locations, limited geographical access, lack of official preparation materials, challenging academic content and the need for electronic and four-skill assessment preparation in addition to traditional YDS/YÖKDİL exam strategies. During the test itself, test-takers expressed challenges with time management, inability to take breaks, mental and physical fatigue (due to prolonged periods of sitting), noise from simultaneous speaking tasks, technical malfunctions, limitations of the interface and the positive or negative effects of an individual’s computer literacy skills on their performance. Post-test test-taker issues included lack of transparency with respect to scoring, uncertainty with respect to the extent to which human or machine evaluation would have an impact on their final score(s), delayed scoring, equivalence and accreditation of scores across test-taker populations, and possible impact of the e-TEP on the academic and professional trajectories of test-takers. Findings of this study indicate that the e-TEP holds promise in terms of promoting a significant shift in how the four skills of the English language are assessed in Türkiye and promoting more comprehensive, communicative assessment of four-skills ability.

Keywords

• e-TEP
• four-skill assessment
• English proficiency assessment
• computer-based assessment
• test-taker perceptions
• washback

References

1. Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10. 1093/applin/14.2.115
2. Aşkaroğlu, V. (2014). 2013 YDS ile 2012 KPDS ve 2012 ÜDS sınavlarının karşılaştırılması. Karadeniz Uluslararası Bilimsel Dergi, (21), 162-173.
3. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice (Vol. 53). Oxford University Press.
4. Bailey, A. L., & Carroll, P. E. (2015). Assessment of English language learners in the era of new academic content standards. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 253–294. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14554230
5. Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300303
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
7. Canlı, B., & Çakır, İ. (2022). The washback effect of the Undergraduate English Placement Examination on language teaching from the perspectives of the teachers. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 16(2), 1–15.
8. Cheewasukthaworn, K. (2022). Developing a standardized English proficiency test in alignment with the CEFR. PASAA, 63, 66–92.

9. Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback study (Vol. 21). Cambridge University Press.
10. Coombe, C., Vafadar, H., & Mohebbi, H. (2020). Language assessment literacy: What do we need to learn, unlearn, and relearn? Language Testing in Asia, 10(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-020-00101-6
11. Cumming, A. (2009). Language assessment in education: Tests, curricula, and teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190509090050
12. Demir, C. (2019). YDS as a benchmark in Turkey: The difficulty levels of reading comprehension questions. EKEV Akademi Dergisi, (80), 95–112.
13. Demirkol Orak, S. (2025). Washback effect and English language testing in Türkiye: A critical review study. New Era International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Researches, 10(28), 155–168.
14. Gedil, İ., & Aydın, S. (2023). Online testing and assessment in the English as a foreign language context: Teachers’ perspectives. The Literacy Trek, 9(2), 1–23.
15. Gelen, İ., & Çakır, K. (2025). An examination of the compatibility of the English Language Teaching program outcomes in Türkiye with the Foreign Language Test (YDT) in terms of various variables. Journal of Language Research, 9(2), 46-65. https://doi.org/10.51726/jlr.1756382
16. Green, A. (2007). Washback to learning outcomes: A comparative study of IELTS preparation and university pre-sessional language courses. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 14(1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940701272880
17. Green, A. (2020). Exploring language assessment and testing: Language in action (2nd ed.). Routledge.
18. Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 109–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264513
19. Isbell, D. R., & Kremmel, B. (2020). Test review: Current options in at-home language proficiency tests for making high-stakes decisions. Language Testing, 37(4), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220943483
20. Jin, Y. (2023). Test-taker insights for language assessment policies and practices. Language Testing, 40(1), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322221136125
21. Kıray, G. (2015). Macro-structure analysis of reading comprehension paragraphs of KPDS and YDS exams within years 2003-2013. HAYEF: Journal of Education, 12(1), 219–233.
22. Koraishi, O. (2024). The intersection of AI and language assessment: A study on the reliability of ChatGPT in grading IELTS Writing Task 2. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 43, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2024.43.02
23. Kurt, Y., & Bayyurt, Y. (2023). Preparing university students for multilingual EMI contexts in Türkiye. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 12(2), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1515/jelf-2023-2015
24. Langenfeld, T., Burstein, J., & von Davier, A. A. (2022). Digital-first learning and assessment systems for the 21st century. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 1012351. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1012351
25. Lee, H., Bruce, E., Langeslag, J., & Tasviri, R. (2026). Outcomes of one-skill retakes in a four-skills proficiency test:Evidence from large-scale test data. Language Testing. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322261459898
26. Lee, S. (2022). Evaluating the new TOEFL ITP® speaking test: Insights from field test takers. ETS Research Report Series, 2022(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12350
27. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
28. Murray, N., & Hicks, M. (2016). An institutional approach to English language proficiency. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(2), 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2014.938261
29. Nishizawa, H., Isbell, D. R., & Suzuki, Y. (2022). Review of the Japanese-Language Proficiency Test. Language Testing, 39(3), 494–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211072837
30. Ölçme, Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi. (n.d.). Sınavlar. ÖSYM. Retrieved August 15, 2026, from https://www.osym.gov.tr/SinavGrubu/Index/1
31. Pandey, G. P. (2025). Designing effective language tests: A framework for integrating stages, processes, and best practices. Jo-ELT (Journal of English Language Teaching), 12(1), 62–74.
32. Payne, J. S. (2020). Developing L2 productive language skills online and the strategic use of instructional tools. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12452
33. Pengelley, J., Whipp, P. R., & Malpique, A. (2025). A testing load: A review of cognitive load in computer and paperbased learning and assessment. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 34(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2024.2381200
34. Pradhani, R. C. (2025). The role of four skills in teaching and learning: An integrated approach to second language acquisition. The Voice of Creative Research, 7(3), 48–68.
35. Read, J. (2022). Test review: The International English Language Testing System (IELTS). Language Testing, 39(4),679–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322221102377
36. Sharma, C., & Puri, S. R. (2021). The importance of four basic skills in learning English. The Genesis, 7(4), 33–36.
37. Swiecki, Z., Khosravi, H., Chen, G., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Lodge, J. M., Milligan, S., Selwyn, N., & Gašević, D. (2022). Assessment in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, Article 100075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100075
38. Topal, İ. H. (2024). An inquiry into the perceptions of English language learning: Voices from the preparatory school students in Türkiye. International Journal of Language Academy, 12(2), 364–378. https://ijla.net/articles/f46158d6-a0f7-4138-be2b-1f0ad3a510db
39. Topal, İ. H. (2026). A content analysis of doctoral dissertations on L2 pronunciation by Turkish authors. Language Teaching and Educational Research (LATER), 9(1), 21-42. https://doi.org/10.35207/later.1867354
40. Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Palgrave Macmillan.
41. Xi, X. (2025). Revisiting communicative competence in the age of AI: Implications for large-scale testing. AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics, 45, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719052400012X