Evaluation of the Effect of an In-Service Training Program on Assessment for Learning for English Language Teachers

Öz

The aim of this paper is to present the effect of an In-Service Training (INSET) Program designed to develop Assessment for Learning (AfL) practices on English language teachers. For this purpose, English language teachers working in the state high schools attended the five-session-long INSET program in 2020-2021 Spring semester. Whether there were any changes between teachers’ responses to the tasks assigned before and after the sessions and what their opinions were related to the training were examined. Data collection tools included a task prepared for each session and a questionnaire including four-point Likert type questions and open-ended items. Descriptive statistics were used in the analysis of the quantitative data while deductive coding was employed to analyze the qualitative data. The results demonstrated that most of the teachers thought that AfL was ‘quite important’. The findings also yielded that the first three items about what changes were detected most were identified as ‘providing more opportunities to express their opinions’, ‘clarifying learning intentions in a detailed way’, and ‘using clear comments’. The outcomes shed light on the participant teachers’ ideas about the differentiations between their first and second responses to the same tasks, and most teachers reported variations between pre- and post-task responses as ‘partially changed’ or ‘changed a lot’. The techniques mentioned during the training were rated as ‘practical’ or ‘partial practical’ by a great number of teachers. The findings suggested that English language teachers should be given more chances for taking part in in-service training programs, especially on AfL; in this way, it can be provided that they can use the new strategies in English language classes efficiently.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Assessment for Learning
• EFL Teachers
• Formative Assessment
• In-Service Training Program
• Language Assessment

İngilizce Öğretmenlerine Yönelik Öğrenme İçin Değerlendirme Konulu Bir Hizmet-İçi Eğitim Programının Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, İngilizce Öğretmenlerinin Öğrenme için Değerlendirme uygulamalarını geliştirmek amacıyla tasarlanmış bir Hizmet-İçi Eğitim Programının etkisini ortaya koymaktır. Bu amaçla, devlet liselerinde görev yapmakta olan İngilizce Öğretmenleri 2020-2021 Bahar döneminde beş oturumda gerçekleşen Hizmet-İçi Eğitim programına katılmıştır. Öğretmenlerin bu oturumların başında ve sonunda uygulanan görevlere verdikleri yanıtları arasında herhangi bir fark olup olmadığı ve öğretmenlerin eğitim hakkındaki düşünceleri incelenmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak her bir oturum için hazırlanan görevler ile dörtlü-Likert tipi ve açık uçlu sorulardan oluşan bir anket kullanılmıştır. Nicel veri analizinde betimsel istatistik, nitel veri analizinde ise tümdengelimsel kodlama kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları, öğretmenlerin çoğunun Öğrenme için Değerlendirmenin ‘oldukça önemli’ olduğunu düşündüğünü göstermiştir. Bu sonuçlara göre, değişimle ilgili en çok tespit edilen ilk üç madde ise ‘düşüncelerini ifade etmek için daha fazla şans verme’, ‘öğrenme hedeflerinin daha ayrıntılı bir şekilde açıklanması’ ve ‘anlaşılır yorumlar yapma’ olmuştur. Bulgular, katılımcı öğretmenlerin aynı görev için verdikleri ilk ve ikinci yanıtları arasındaki farklılıklarla ilgili görüşlerine de ışık tutmaktadır. Öğretmenlerin çoğu, ön ve son görev yanıtları arasındaki farkları ‘kısmen değişti’ ya da ‘çok değişti’ şeklinde ifade etmişlerdir. Eğitim sırasında üzerinde durulan teknikleri ise çok sayıda öğretmen ‘uygulanabilir’ ya da ‘kısmen uygulanabilir’ olarak değerlendirmiştir. Bu bulgulara göre İngilizce öğretmenlerine Hizmet-İçi Eğitim Programlarına katılmaları için daha çok şans verilmesi tavsiye edilmektedir, özellikle de değerlendirme ile ilgili, böylece yeni stratejileri İngilizce sınıflarında etkin bir şekilde kullanabilmeleri güvence altına alınmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğrenme için Değerlendirme
• İngilizce Öğretmenleri
• Biçimlendirici Değerlendirme
• Hizmet-İçi Eğitim Programı
• Dil Değerlendirme

Kaynakça

1. Akdağ, E. and Özkan, Y. (2017). Enhancing writing skills of EFL learners through blogging. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 17(2), 79-95. Retrieved March 16, 2021, from https://web.archive.org/web/20180421125808id_/http://www.readingmatrix.com/files/17-65f6f3wr.pdf.
2. Alonzo, D. A. (2016). Development and application of a teacher assessment for learning (AfL) literacy tool. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved May 4, 2020, from https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/entities/publication/2c7b124f-042c-4c54-a792-aa5c7b25f6d3/full.
3. Andersson, C. and Palm, T. (2017) Characteristics of improved formative assessment practice. Education Inquiry, 8(2), 104-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2016.1275185.
4. Andersson, C., Boström, E., and Palm, T. (2017). Formative assessment in Swedish mathematics classroom practice. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 22(1), 5-20. Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://ncm.gu.se/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/22_1_005020_andersson.pdf.
5. Andrade, H. L. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.) Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 90-105). Routledge.
6. Assessment Reform Group (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Retrieved May 21, 2020, from http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/SBA/HKDSE/Eng_DVD/doc/Afl_principles.pdf.
7. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), pp. 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678.
8. Birenbaum, M., DeLuca, C., Earl, L., Heritage, M., Klenowski, V., Looney, A., Smith, K., Timperley, H., Volante, L., and Wyatt-Smith, C. (2015). International trends in the implementation of assessment for learning: Implications for policy and practice. Policy Futures in Education, 13(1), 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210314566733.

9. Black, P. (1999). Assessment, learning theories and testing systems. In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, learning and assessment (pp. 118-134). Paul Chapman Publishing.
10. Black P. (2015). Formative assessment – an optimistic but incomplete vision. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 161-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.999643.
11. Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102.
12. Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148. Retrieved July 2, 2020, from https://kappanonline.org/inside- the-black-box-raising-standards-through-classroom-assessment/.
13. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., and Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Open University Press.
14. Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.
15. Boardman, A. G. and Woodruff, A. L. (2004). Teacher change and “high-stakes” assessment: what happens to professional development? Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(6), 545-557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.06.001.
16. Brown, G. T. L., Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., Chan, J. K. S., and 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319737.
17. Büyükkarcı, K. (2014). Assessment beliefs and practices of language teachers in primary education. International Journal of Instruction, 7(1), 107-120. Retrieved August 7, 2020, from https://www.e-iji.net/dosyalar/iji_2014_1_8.pdf.
18. Carless, D. (2005) Prospects for the implementation of Assessment for Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594042000333904.
19. Cindrić, I. and Pavić, S. (2017). Tendencies and characteristics of feedback given by primary English language teachers in Croatia. ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries, 14(2), 85-102. https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.14.2.85-102.
20. Coombe, C. (2018). An A to Z of Second Language Assessment: How Language Teachers Understand Assessment Concepts. British Council. Retrieved January 7, 2021, from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/a_to_z_glossary_final.pdf
21. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education.
22. Crichton, H. and McDaid, A. (2016). Learning intentions and success criteria: Learners’ and teachers’ views. The Curriculum Journal, 27(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1103278.
23. Çelik, K. ve Filiz, S. B. (2018). Ortaöğreti̇m İngilizce Dersi̇ Öğreti̇m Programı’nın (2014) Eisner Modeli̇ne göre değerlendi̇ri̇lmesi̇. Eğitim ve Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(1), 50-67. Retrieved October 17, 2020, from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/496590.
24. Davison, C. (2019). Using Assessment to Enhance Learning in English Language Education. In X. Gao (Ed.) Second handbook of English language teaching, (pp. 433-454). Springer.
25. De Lisle, J. (2015). The promise and reality of formative assessment practice in a continuous assessment scheme: The case of Trinidad and Tobago. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 79-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.944086.
26. DeLuca, C., Klinger, D., Pyper, J., and Woods, J. (2015). Instructional rounds as a professional learning model for systemic implementation of assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 122-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.967168.
27. DeLuca, C., Chapman-Chin, A., and Klinger, D. A. (2019). Toward a teacher professional learning continuum in assessment for learning. Educational Assessment, 24(4), 267-285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2019.1670056.
28. Deneen, C., Fulmer, G. W., Brown, G. T., Tan, K., Leong, W. S., and Tay, H. Y. (2019). Value, practice and proficiency: Teachers’ complex relationship with assessment for learning. Teacher and Teacher Education, 80, 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.022.
29. Flórez Petour, M. T. (2015). Systems, ideologies and history: A three-dimensional absence in the study of assessment reform processes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.943153.
30. Fulmer, G. W., Lee, I. C., and Tan, K. H. (2015). Multi-level model of contextual factors and teachers’ assessment practices: An integrative review of research. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(4), 475-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1017445.
31. Ghaffar, M. A., Khairallah, M., and Salloum, S. (2020). Co-constructed rubrics and assessment for learning: The impact on middle school students’ attitudes and writing skills. Assessing Writing, 45, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100468.
32. Harrison, C. (2010). Peer and self-assessment. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGraw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education, (3rd ed. pp 231-235). Elsevier.
33. Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2015). Diversity in language testing and assessment literacy of language teachers in Turkey. Paper presented at the 3rd ULEAD Congress, International Congress on Applied Linguistics: Current Issues in Applied Linguistics, Çanakkale, Turkey.
34. Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81- 112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
35. Hayward, L. (2015). Assessment is learning: The preposition vanishes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.984656.
36. Heitink, M. C., Van der Kleij, F. M., Veldkamp, B. P., Schildkamp, K., and Kippers, W. B. (2016). A systematic review of prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educational Research Review, 17, 50-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.12.002.
37. Hopfenbeck, T. N., Flórez Petour, M. T., and Tolo, A. (2015). Balancing tensions in educational policy reforms: Large-scale implementation of assessment for learning in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 44-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.996524.
38. James, M., Black, P., Carmichael, P., Conner, C., Dudley, P., Fox, A., Forst, D., Honour, L., MacBeath,
39. J, McCormick, R., Marshall, B., Pedder, D., Procter, R., Swaffield, S., and Wiliam, D. (2006). Learning how to learn: Tools for schools. Routledge.
40. Jonsson, A., Lundahl, C., and Holmgren, A. (2015). Evaluating a large-scale implementation of Assessment for Learning in Sweden. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 104-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.970612.
41. Karaman, P. and Şahin, Ç. (2017). Adaptation of teachers' conceptions and practices of formative assessment scale into Turkish culture and a structural equation modeling. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(2), 185-194. Retrieved March 16, 2020, from https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/320/310.
42. Kayacan, A. and Razı, S. (2017). Digital self-review and anonymous peer feedback in Turkish high school EFL writing. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 561-577. Retrieved February 12, 2020, from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/440790.
43. Kitchen, H., Bethell, G., Fordham, E., Henderson, K., and Li, R. R. (2019). OECD Reviews of Evaluation And Assessment in Education: Student Assessment in Turkey. OECD Publishing.
44. Klenowski, V. (2009). Assessment for learning revisited: an Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16(3), 263-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319646.
45. Lu, W. and Mustapha, S. M. (2020). Relationship between assessment for learning and English learning motivation of university students in blended learning environment. Journal of Education and Practice, 11(5), 65-71. Retrieved April 10, 2021, from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/304991495.pdf.
46. Mede, E. and Atay, D. (2017). English language teachers’ assessment literacy: The Turkish context. Ankara Üniversitesi TÖMER Dil Dergisi, 168(1), 43-60. Retrieved June 17, 2021, from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/780021.
47. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., and Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
48. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018a). Güçlü yarınlar için 2023 Eğitim Vizyonu [2023 Education vision for strong tomorrows]. Retrieved May 4, 2022, from https://www.gmka.gov.tr/dokumanlar/yayinlar/2023_Eğitim%20Vizyonu.pdf.
49. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018b). Ortaöğretim İngilizce Dersi Öğretim Programı [Secondary Education English Language Teaching Curriculum]. Retrieved March 2, 2021, from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=342.
50. Nasr, M., Bagheri, M. S., Sadighi, F., and Rassaei, E. (2018). Iranian EFL teachers’ perceptions of assessment for learning regarding monitoring and scaffolding practices as a function of their demographics. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1558916.
51. Nasr, M., Bagheri, M. S., Sadighi, F., and Rassaei, E. (2019). Iranian EFL teachers’ assessment for learning practices and barriers: Do textbooks taught and teaching context matter? Cogent Arts & Humanities, 6(1), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2019.1646691.
52. Nasr, M., Bagheri, M. S., and Sadighi, F. (2020). Iranian English language teachers' perceptions of monitoring and scaffolding practices of Assessment for Learning: A focus on gender and class size. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 8(29), 75-90. Retrieved May 2, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344931240.
53. Nation, I. S. P. and Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. Routledge/ Taylor & Francis.
54. Ölmezer-Öztürk, E. and Aydın, B. (2018). Toward measuring language teachers’ assessment knowledge: Development and validation of Language Assessment Knowledge Scale (LAKS). Language Testing in Asia, 8(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-018-0075-2.
55. Ölmezer-Öztürk, E. and Aydın, B. (2019). Investigating language assessment knowledge of EFL teachers. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34(3), 602-620. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018043465.
56. Öz, H. (2014). Turkish teachers' practices of assessment for learning in the English as a foreign language classroom. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 5(4), 775-785. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.4.775-785.
57. Popham, W. J. (2011). Transformative assessment in action: An inside look at applying the process. ASCD.
58. PDST, Leaving Certificate Applied, Teacher Handbook. (2022). Retrieved June 19, 2023, from https://www.pdst.ie/sites/default/files/LCA%20Teacher%20Handbook%202021%20d%20%281%29.pdf.
59. Purpura, J. E. (2016). Second and foreign language assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 190-208.https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12308.
60. Ratnam-Lim, C. T. L. and Tan, K. H. K. (2015). Large-scale implementation of formative assessment practices in an examination-oriented culture. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 61-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.1001319.
61. Stobart, G. and Gipps, C. (2010). Alternative assessment. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGraw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd eds. pp. 202-208). Elsevier.
62. Swaffield, S. (2011). Getting to the heart of authentic assessment for learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(4), 433-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2011.582838.
63. Topping, K. and Ehly, S. (1998). Introduction to peer-assisted learning. In K. Topping, & S. Ehly (Eds), Peer-assisted learning (pp. 1-23). Routledge.
64. Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569.
65. Tsagari, D. and Banerjee, J. (2016). The handbook of second language assessment. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.). Handbook of second language assessment (pp. 1-10). De Gruyter Mouton.
66. Umar, A. M. A. T. (2018). The impact of Assessment for Learning on students' achievement in English for Specific Purposes: A case study of pre-medical students at Khartoum University: Sudan. English Language Teaching, 11(2), 15-25. http://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n2p15.
67. Vattøy, K. D. (2020). Teachers’ beliefs about feedback practice as related to student self-regulation, self-efficacy, and language skills in teaching English as a foreign language. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100828.
68. Wiliam, D. (2005). Keeping learning on track: Formative assessment and the regulation of learning. In C. J. Anderson & T. Spencer (Eds.) Making mathematics vital: Proceedings of the twentieth biennial conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (pp. 20-34). Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.
69. Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for a new theory of formative assessment. In H. L. Andrade, R.E. Bennett & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment in the disciplines (pp.18-40). Routledge.
70. Wiliam, D. (2011a). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001.
71. Wiliam, D. (2011b). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
72. Wiliam, D. (2018). The handbook for embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
73. Wiliam, D. and Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed). The future of assessment (pp. 53-82). Routledge.
74. Willis, J. (2011). Towards learner autonomy: An assessment for learning approach (Doctoral dissertation) Retrieved May 17, 2021, from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/45498/.
75. Wu, X. M., Zhang, L. J., and Dixon, H. R. (2021). Implementing Assessment for Learning (AfL) in Chinese university EFL classes: Teachers’ values and practices. System, 101, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102589.
76. Wylie, E. C. and Lyon, C. J. (2015). The fidelity of formative assessment implementation: Issues of breadth and quality. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 140-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2014.990416.
77. Xu, Y. and Harfitt, G. (2019). Is assessment for learning feasible in large classes? Challenges and coping strategies from three case studies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 47(5), 472-486. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2018.1555790.
78. Yakışık, B. Y. (2021). EFL learners’ preferences and emotions about oral corrective feedback at secondary education in Turkey: Are there gender and grade-level differences? Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 103-122. Retrieved January 9, 2022, from https://ijeltal.org/index.php/ijeltal/article/view/889/pdf.
79. Yan, Z. (2014). Predicting teachers' intentions to implement school-based assessment using the theory of planned behaviour. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(2), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.877394.
80. Yan, Z., Li, Z., Panadero, E., Yang, M., Yang, L., and Lao, H. (2021). A systematic review on factors influencing teachers’ intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 28(3) 228-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1884042.
81. Yücel, E., Dimici, K., Yıldız, B. ve Bümen, N. (2017). Son 15 yılda yayımlanan ilk ve ortaöğretim İngilizce dersi öğretim programları üzerine bir analiz. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 702-737. Retrieved January 19, 2021, from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/369885.
82. Zlabkova, I., Petr, J., Stuchlikova, I., Rokos, L., and Hospesova, A. (2021). Development of teachers’ perspectives on formative peer assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 43(3), 428-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1713418.