The power of language tests In Turkish context: A critical study

Abstract

Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please use Times New Roman, 12 pt.
The power of language tests In Turkish context: A critical study
High-stakes tests are often introduced to bring about change on educational practices and thus lead to pedagogical reform. The Field Knowledge Test (FKT) for teacher candidates of English in Turkey is an example of such an attempt. This study aims to giving voice to English language teacher educators and student teachers to view the FKT critically to investigate if it has brought about the intended changes and its impact on its main stakeholders. The study, first, presents Critical Language Testing (CLT). Then, it gives information on the context of the study. Data collection for the study involved 153 test takers and 23 teacher educators working at ELT Departments in Turkey. Two open-ended questionnaires were used to survey participants’ perceptions of the FKT in terms of its impact on the nature of education they receive, their attitudes and feelings and also on their academic and personal lives. Analysis of data paved the way for further studies on how high stakes tests might or might not be efficient agents of change in various educational contexts.
Information about Author(s)*
Author 1
Author (Last name, First name)	Öztürk Karataş, Tuçe
Affiliated institution (University)	Çukurova University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank	English Language Teaching Department (ELT)
Corresponding author (Yes/No) Write only one corresponding author.	no
Author 2
Author (Last name, First name)	Okan, Zuhal
Affiliated institution (University)	Çukurova University
Country	Turkey
Email address	[e-mail]
Department & Rank	English Language Teaching Department (ELT)
Corresponding author (Yes/No)	Yes
Author 3
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)
Author 4
Author (Last name, First name)
Affiliated institution (University)
Country
Email address
Department & Rank
Corresponding author (Yes/No)

Keywords

• the use of test,the power of test,test impact,consequences of test

Kaynakça

1. Alderson, J. C.,& Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist?. Applied linguistics, 14(2), 115-129.
2. Alderson, J. C.,&Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: A study of washback. Language Testing, 13(3), 280-297.
3. Andrews, S., Fullilove, J., &Wong, Y. (2002). Targeting washback—a case-study. System, 30(2), 207-223.
4. Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language testing, 13(3), 257-279.
5. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
6. Bracey, G. W. (1987). Measurement-Driven Instruction: Catchy Phrase, Dangerous Practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(9), 683-86.
7. Brunfaut, T. (2014). A lifetime of language testing: An interview with J. Charles Alderson. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), 103-119.
8. Burrows, C. (2004). Washback in classroom-based assessment: A study of the washback effect in the Australian adult migrant English program. In L.Cheng& Y. Watanebe (withA.Curis) (Eds.), Washback in languagetesting: Research contexts and methods (pp.113-128). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

9. Cheng, L. (2001). Washback studies: Methodological considerations. In Curriculum Forum (Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 17-32).
10. Cheng, L.,&Curtis, A. (2004). Washback or backwash: A review of the impact of testing on teaching and learning. In L.Cheng and Y. Watanabe (eds.) with A. Curtis (eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods, (pp.3-17). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Cheng, L. (2008). Washback, impact and consequences. In Encyclopedia of language andeducation (pp. 2479-2494). Springer US.
13. Davison, C. (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.
14. Hamp-Lyons, L., Hood, S., & MacLennan, C. (2001). Promoting Quality Teaching in the Tertiary Context. Higher Education Review, 34(1), 60-76.
15. Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2016). The impact of the University Entrance Exam on EFL education in Turkey: Pre-service English language teachers’ perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 136-144.
16. Hughes, A. (2003). Testing English for Language Teachers.
17. Li, H. (2008). Are teachers teaching to the test? A case study of the College English Test (CET) in China. Poster presented at 30th Annual Language Testing Research Colloquim, Hong Zhou, China
18. Luxia, Q. (2005). Stakeholders’ conflicting aims undermine the washback function of a high-stakes test. Language Testing, 22(2), 142-173.
19. Madaus, G. E. (1998). The influence of testing on the curriculum. Yearbook-National Society For The Study Of Education, 2, 71-112.
20. McNamara, T. (2005). 21st century shibboleth: Language tests, identity and intergroup conflict. Language Policy, 4(4), 351-370.
21. McNamara, T., &Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.
22. McNmara, T. (2014).Language Testing.Oxford University Press.
23. Menken, K. (2008). High‐Stakes Tests as de facto Language Education Policies. In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 2529-2541).Springer US.
24. Pearson, I. (1988). Tests as levers for change. In D.Chamberlein& R.J. Baumgardner (Eds.), ESP in the classroom: Practice and evaluation (pp.98-107). London: Modern English.
25. Rea-Dickins, P., Kiely, R., & Yu, G. (2007). Student Identity, Learning and Progression: with specific reference to the affective and academic impact of IELTS on ‘successful’ candidates. IELTS Impact Studies Vol, 7. (IELTS Joint-funded research programme). IELTS Australia&the British Council.
26. Shohamy, E. (1993). The Power of Tests: The Impact of Language Tests on Teaching and Learning.NFLC Occasional Papers.
27. Shohamy, E.,Donitsa-Schmidt, S., & Ferman, I. (1996). Test impact revisited: Washback Effect over time. Language testing, 13(3), 298-317.
28. Shohamy, E. (1998). Critical language testing and beyond. Studies in educational evaluation, 24(4), 331-345.
29. Shohamy, E. (2001a). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language testing, 18(4), 373-391.
30. Shohamy, E. (2001b). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Routledge.
31. Shohamy, E. G. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Psychology Press.
32. Shohamy, E. (2007a). The power of language tests, the power of the English language and the role of ELT. In International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 521-531).Springer US.
33. Shohamy, E. (2007b). Language tests as language policy tools. Assessment in Education, 14(1), 117-130.
34. Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8-11.
35. Stake, R. E. (1991). Impact of changes in assessment policy. In Stake, R.E., (ed), Advances in program evaluation: using assessment policy to reform education, Volume 1. London: JAI Press Inc.
36. Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power.palgrave Macmillan.
37. Wall, D.,&Alderson, J. C. (1993). Examining washback: the Sri Lankan impact study. Language testing, 10(1), 41-69.
38. Young, R. F. (2012). Social dimensions of language testing. The Routledge handbook of language testing, 178-193.