The Impact of Conferencing Assessment on EFL Students’ Grammar
Learning
Impacto de
la evaluación mediante conferencias en el aprendizaje de la
gramática en estudiantes de inglés como lengua extranjera
Sasan Baleghizadeh*
Shahid Beheshti University, g.c., Iran
Zahra Zarghami**
Allameh Tabataba’i University, Iran
This article was received on January 31, 2012, and
accepted on June 1, 2012.
This article reports on a study that was carried out
in order to examine the impact of conferencing assessment on students’
learning of English grammar.
Forty-two Iranian intermediate university students were randomly
assigned to an experimental and a control group. The participants in the
experimental group took part in four individual and four whole class
conferences. The participants in the control group studied the same grammatical
points but they were not involved in conferencing assessment. The results of
the study showed that the experimental group performed significantly better
than the control group on the given post-test. Moreover, the attitudes of the
participants toward grammar learning in the experimental group significantly
changed from the first administration of a questionnaire to its second
administration.
Key words: Alternatives in language
assessment, assessment for learning, conferencing assessment.
En este
artículo se reporta un estudio llevado a cabo con el fin de examinar el
impacto de la evaluación mediante conferencias en el aprendizaje de
gramática inglesa. Cuarenta y dos estudiantes universitarios
iraníes, de nivel intermedio, fueron asignados aleatoriamente a dos
grupos: uno experimental y otro de control. Los estudiantes del grupo
experimental participaron en cuatro entrevistas individuales y cuatro con toda
la clase. Los del grupo de control estudiaron los mismos elementos gramaticales
pero no estuvieron involucrados en conferencias de evaluación. Los
resultados del estudio mostraron que el grupo experimental tuvo un
desempeño significativamente mejor que el del grupo de control en el
examen que se realizó al final del proceso investigativo. Además,
se halló que las actitudes de los participantes del grupo experimental
hacia el aprendizaje de la gramática cambiaron entre la primera y la
segunda aplicación de un cuestionario.
Palabras clave: alternativas en
evaluación del lenguaje, evaluación del aprendizaje,
evaluación mediante conferencias.
Introduction
In every country, educational policymakers place great
emphasis on tests and test scores. Tests are considered to be measurement tools
and, more often than not, important decisions about people are made based on
their test scores. People usually think that it is the test itself and the
score on the test which are so important. However, the fact is that “it
is the use to which we put their results that can be appropriate or
inappropriate” (Bailey, 1998, p. 204).
Tests, however, are just one of the possible methods
of assessment. Practitioners in the field of education make a distinction
between tests and assessment. As Brown (2004) states, “tests are formal
procedures, usually administered within strict time limitations, to sample the
performance of a test-taker in a specified domain” while
“Assessment includes all occasions from informal impromptu observations
and comments up to and including tests” (p. 251).
Reliability and validity of a test were considered to
be the two most important issues in designing traditional tests such as
multiple-choice items and other standardized tests. Such tests were constructed
in a way to ensure both objectivity and ease of administration and scoring.
Since the 1990s, there has been a major paradigm shift in language testing and
assessment domain. The shortcomings of standardized tests convinced specialists
to replace traditional tests with new kinds of language assessment. Portfolios,
journals, self- and peer-assessment, and many other techniques have been
introduced in order to evaluate students’ achievement. Brown and
Hudson (1998, p. 657) state that
using the term “alternative assessment” for the newly introduced
methods of language assessment is counterproductive because the term implies
something completely new and distinct from what was done before. They suggest
the term “alternatives in language assessment” for these methods of
language assessment (Brown, 2004, p. 252).
The last decade has also witnessed another widespread
change in language assessment concepts and methods. One of the main reasons for
such a shift is the growing interest of practitioners in the concept of
“assessment for learning,” which means considering teaching, learning,
and assessment as an integrated and interdependent chain of events (Lee, 2007).
Assessment for learning is best defined as a process by which assessment
information is used by teachers to adjust their teaching strategies, and by
students to adjust their learning strategies. Based on this view, assessment,
teaching, and learning are interdependently linked, as each one imposes its own
effect on the others (Assessment Reform Group, 2002).
Conferences, a special type of purposeful conversation
or discussion between teachers and learners, can be regarded as a new form of
evaluating students’ achievement in different educational settings.
Genesee and Upshur (1996) argue that conferences involve both teachers and
learners visiting each other in an office or classroom to discuss the
students’ performance in their learning process. They stress that during
a conference the focus of the instructor should be on the learners and their
needs in the learning process they are experiencing.
Since the inception of alternative assessment methods,
a number of researchers have tried to investigate the effectiveness of using
these new methods of assessment on language learning of different students.
Ross (2005) has investigated the impact of using formative methods of assessment
on foreign language proficiency growth by involving eight cohorts of foreign
language learners in an eight-year longitudinal study. The results of this
study indicate that formative assessment practices yield very positive effects
on language proficiency growth. Cheng and Warren (2005) have investigated the
benefits of peer-assessment in English language programs. In their study,
undergraduate engineering students attending a university in Hong Kong were
asked to assess the English language proficiency of their peers. Their study
also compares peer and teacher assessments. The findings suggest that students
had a less positive attitude toward assessing their peers’ language
proficiency, but they did not score their peers’ language proficiency
very differently from the other assessment criteria. Firooz-Zareh
(2006) examined the relationship between alternative assessment techniques and
Iranian students’ reading proficiency. Throughout a whole semester, two
techniques of self-assessment and conferencing were put into practice in the
experimental group. The findings of his study ensure the inclusion of
alternative assessment techniques in assessment and instruction. Likewise, Besharati (2004) looked into the impact of alternative
assessment techniques as regards Iranian students’ listening
comprehension. Again, a combination of the two techniques of self-assessment
and conferencing were put into practice in the experimental group. The results
of this study pointed to the positive effects of incorporating alternative
assessment procedures onto the listening comprehension skills of Iranian
university learners.
Linn, Baker, and Dunbar (1991) have proposed eight
criteria for validation of performance-based assessment, such as many
alternative assessments methods, as follows:
Serious validation
of alternative assessments needs to include evidence regarding the intended and
unintended consequences, the degree to which performance on specific assessment
tasks transfers, and the fairness of the assessment. Evidence is also needed
regarding the cognitive complexity of the processes students employ in solving
problems and the meaningfulness of the problems for students and teachers. In
addition, a basis for judging both content quality and the comprehensiveness of
the content coverage needs to be provided. Finally, the cost of the assessment
must be justified. (p. 20)
The Present
Study
Reviewing the available literature reveals that much
of the research regarding the efficacy of alternative assessment methods has
been carried out in English as a Second Language (ESL)
contexts and these studies have focused on reading and writing skills.
The application of alternative assessment methods, however, has grown rapidly
beyond the ESL context to many varied situations, specifically in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts. To date, the
effectiveness of alternative assessment methods, incorporating principles of
assessment for learning has not been investigated in the EFL learning context
of Iran. Therefore, more empirical research is required to examine the impact
of alternative assessment methods and assessment for learning techniques on
language learners’ attitudes and their achievements. Therefore, the
present study aims to investigate the efficacy of conferencing assessment
procedure on grammar learning of Iranian EFL students and their attitudes
toward formal grammar learning by seeking to answer the following research
questions:
1. Does
conferencing assessment have any impact on Iranian EFL students’ grammar
learning?
2. Does
conferencing assessment change the attitude of Iranian EFL students toward
formal grammar learning?
3. Does
traditional summative assessment change the attitude of Iranian EFL students
toward formal grammar learning?
4. Is
there any change in the attitude of the students in both groups (conferencing
versus traditional assessment) toward formal grammar learning?
Method
Participants
The participants for this study were 42 Iranian
intermediate EFL students (22 females and 20 males) majoring in different
fields (information technology, computer engineering, accounting, etc.) in one
of the branches of the University of Applied Science and Technology in Tehran,
Iran. They were freshmen with an average age of 22. The participants were
members of two classes taking a course named General English I. These classes, both taught by the same teacher,
were randomly assigned to one experimental group (n=20) and one control group
(n=22).
Instruments
The main instrument used in this study was a 50-item
grammar test consisting of 25 multiple-choice and 25 error recognition items.
The test was administered to both groups in the first and last sessions of the
experimental period. The questions were based on the topics students were
supposed to study during the course General
English I, namely, (a) verb tenses (including simple present, simple past,
future, present continuous, past continuous, future continuous, present
perfect, past perfect, future perfect, present perfect continuous, past perfect
continuous, and future perfect continuous), (b) auxiliary verbs, (c)
coordination (including coordinating conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs), and
(d) subordinators (including relative pronouns and adverbial subordinating
conjunctions). There were 12 items from each topic except verb tenses, which
included 14 items in the test, most of which were adopted from previous actual
samples of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), officially
released by Educational Testing Service
(ETS). Some of the test items are provided in Appendix A.
Given that the items were selected and adopted from
various sources, there was a need to check the reliability as well as the
content validity of the test. The reliability of the test, measured through Kuder-Richardson 21 formula, turned out to be 0.89 and its
content validity was approved by the course instructor as well as by an EFL
university professor.
This test served three purposes in this study: It was
used as the pre-test as well as the post-test. Moreover, it functioned as an
instrument to determine the homogeneity of both groups at the beginning of the
study in terms of their grammatical knowledge.
To find out the attitude of Iranian university
students regarding formal grammar learning, a questionnaire developed by Schulz
(2001) was used. This questionnaire was administered two times (once at the
beginning and then at the end of the treatment period to determine whether or
not the participants’ responses on the first administration would differ
from their responses on the second administration of the questionnaire. The
questionnaire had a five-point scale in Likert
format (strongly disagree, disagree, undecided, agree, and strongly
agree). The minimum and maximum scores on this questionnaire were 13 and 65,
respectively. The reliability of this questionnaire calculated through Cronbach’s alpha level formula was acceptable (α >.60).
In order to collect appropriate data for the study,
the following steps were taken. In the first session of the treatment, the
grammar test was administered to both groups. In addition, the questionnaire
was given to all the participants and some explanations were given by the
instructor to help learners complete the questionnaire.
Throughout the ten-week semester, the conferencing
assessment technique was utilized for the experimental group based on the
grammar points programmed to be taught in the class. The procedure for
implementing this technique in the experimental group was a conference
check-list, which was a set of questions to be asked by the instructor and was
used as the specific treatment for this group. It can be considered as a kind
of treatment in that the participants gave the instructor feedback on their
strengths and weaknesses in grammar tasks and the instructor provided them with
necessary feedback regarding their problems and helped them overcome their
weaknesses. The main purposes of these conference sessions were the following:
(a) to allow the instructor and the students to talk about learning different
grammar points constructively, (b) to provide both the teacher and the students
with an invaluable source of information about the students’ progress in
their learning, (c) to identify the gaps in the students’ understanding
of the subject matter as well as to provide them with the necessary positive
feedback to motivate them, and (d) to create a supportive atmosphere for the
students to experience problem solving and information sharing processes (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2005).
The checklist (Appendix B) included two sets of questions,
namely:
a. The
questions asked in the first conference. Examples:
• What
do you think about your grammar ability?
• How
do you try to learn grammar?
Sample responses from the learners:
It’s terrible. I don’t like grammar.
(Student 4)
Yes, if I try very hard I can be successful. (Student
8)
A good learner is
someone who is really careful about all the details. A good grammar learner is
also somebody who has a very good memory. (Student 17)
b. These
questions were asked after covering each of the grammar structures mentioned
before:
• Do
you think you have been successful in learning this grammatical structure?
• What
is your weakness in this lesson?
Sample responses from the learners:
Yes, I have been successful to some extent. (Student 2)
Now I am able to
answer grammar questions easily. I can use these structures in my language accurately.
(Student 19)
I always had
problems with different tenses, especially in my speaking, but now I can use
them accurately in my writing and speaking. (Student 11)
In the first session of individual conferencing, each
of the learners was supposed to answer the first set of questions of the
conference checklist. At this time, the instructor was required to create a
comfortable setting to perform face-to-face conferences which would allow the
learners to talk about their problems freely. The students were advised to feel
relaxed in all the conference sessions. They were assured that the main purpose
of the conferencing assessment was to identify their thoughts, strengths, and
weaknesses in order to help them improve their learning. After completing each
grammar point, the participants were required to respond to the second set of
questions of the conference checklist either individually or in whole class
conferences. Based on their answers, the instructor provided them with
appropriate oral feedback to help them overcome their problems in learning that
specific grammatical feature. The instructor’s feedback was supposed to
be consistent with the following English language teaching rules:
• Giving
relevant, practical, and constructive feedback.
• Making
feedback specific rather than general.
• Giving
feedback as immediately as possible.
• Focusing
on the points that may help or lead to more achievements.
• Concentrating
on one particular point at a time.
• Using
non-threatening language, especially for giving negative feedback.
• Considering
the learners’ needs and wants.
• Making
sure that the feedback is understood by the learners.
On the whole, the participants took part in eight
conferences (four individual conferences for each learner and four whole class
conferences). All the conferences were conducted orally in English and on
average lasted for eight minutes. The instructor gave the participants ample
time to talk about their problems and then provided them with appropriate
feedback.
In the control group the routine syllabus—based
on the presentation, practice, and production (PPP) model—was followed
without any resort to alternative assessment techniques. In the control group
the procedure was as follows: The instructor taught the units and then the
participants did the exercises. The participants were not involved in any
individual or whole class conferences. The students were passive most of the
time except the time they were doing the exercises.
At the end of the treatment period (about ten weeks),
the participants in both groups were given the post-test. Reasoning that the
time interval (ten weeks) was long enough for the participants not to remember
the items from the first administration, the pre-test was administered as the
post-test, too. Besides, the same grammar learning attitude questionnaire was
given to all the participants to see whether their responses on the first
administration had differed from their answers on the second administration.
The researchers analyzed the results of the
participants’ scores on the pre- and post-tests of grammar by using an
independent samples t-test. The
scores of the participants on the pre- and post-course questionnaire were
analyzed by using both paired and independent samples t-tests. All statistical analyses were carried out using
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15.0 with alpha set at
.05.
Results
After administering the pre-test, the
participants’ scores were used to check for the homogeneity of both
groups at the outset of the study. The descriptive statistics of the pre-test
are presented in Table 1.
An independent samples t-test was used to see if there was any statistically significant
difference between these two groups. Table 2 shows the
results.
The results indicate that there was not a statistically
significant difference between the mean scores of both groups t (40)=.82, p=.93. Thus, it can be concluded that
both groups of the students participating in this study met the condition of
homogeneity.
After the ten-week treatment period, consisting of 18
sessions, the post-test was administered. The descriptive statistics of the
post-test are presented in Table 3.
To answer the first research question of the study, an
independent samples t-test was used
to compare the mean scores of both groups (see Table 4).
The results revealed that there was a significant
difference between the mean scores of both groups t (40)=7.37, p=.001. This suggests that the participants in the experimental
group significantly outperformed their peers in the control group on the
post-test. Therefore, the first research question was answered in the positive,
which suggests that conferencing assessment played a substantial role in
grammar learning of the participants in the experimental group.
In this study, the same questionnaire was administered
at the beginning and at the end of the experiment to compare the
participants’ attitudes toward formal grammar learning before and after
the treatment period.
To answer the second research question, two paired
samples t-tests were used to compare
the probable differences between the participants’ attitudes in each
group toward formal grammar learning prior to and after the treatment period.
Table 5 displays the data
obtained from the experimental group. The results show that the mean difference
(3.60) is statistically significant t
(19)=3.70, p=.002,
which suggests that the conferencing technique worked with the participants in
the experimental group and changed their attitudes as well. Thus, the second
research question was answered positively, too.
However, as Table 6 shows,
conducting a paired samples t-test
for evaluating the participants’ attitudes in the control group regarding
formal grammar learning revealed that there was no significant difference
before and after taking part in the traditional summative assessment t (19)=-.66, p=.51 (see Table 6). This revelation suggests
that the answer to the third research question is negative.
In order to investigate the fourth research question,
an independent samples t-test was
performed on the post-course questionnaire scores of both groups. The
descriptive statistics of the post-course questionnaire are presented in Table 7.
The results of an independent samples t-test revealed
that there was a significant difference between the mean scores of both groups
in the post-course questionnaire scores t
(40)=3.32, p=.002)
(see Table 8). Thus, it can be concluded that using
alternative assessment procedures positively changed the attitudes of the
participants toward formal grammar learning.
Discussion
This study set out to investigate the efficacy of
alternative assessment methods in EFL contexts. More specifically, the main
purpose of this study was to examine the impact of conferencing assessment on
Iranian EFL students’ grammar learning. Furthermore, the data shed light
on possible differences in terms of the participants’ attitudes toward
grammar learning prior to and after implementing different treatment
conditions.
In brief, the results reported above revealed two
relatively related findings. First, the participants who took part in the
conferencing assessment showed significantly more improvement as compared to
their peers in the control group. And second, these students revealed positive
attitudes toward formal grammar learning after experiencing this alternative
assessment method. Therefore, it can be concluded that integrating teaching,
learning, and assessment processes through alternative assessment procedures
may have positive effects on EFL learners’ achievements in grammar learning
and their attitudes toward its learning.
The findings of the present study corroborate the
findings of studies conducted by Besharati (2004), Firooz-Zareh (2006), and Ross (2005) in that incorporating
alternative assessment procedures in language classes would have a positive
effect on students’ learning. Viewing language tests as an ongoing
process of assessment can change their nature from being an assessment tool to
a learning tool and can be used as an effective way to improve students’
learning and their attitudes about it.
Considering the first research question, the findings
of the study pointed to the significant effects of this alternative assessment
procedure on Iranian EFL students’ grammar learning. These results lead
us to conclude that implementing alternative assessment procedures and applying
principles of assessment for learning have promoted grammar learning of the
participants of this study more than the traditional summative assessment
technique.
The results obtained in this study can be attributed
to the following reasons:
1. Feedback
based on assessment is one of the most powerful issues in teaching and
learning. Maximizing the quality, appropriateness, and use of feedback should
be a core aim of all assessment procedures. Feedback can drive a loop of
continuous change and improvement for both the teacher and student, as both
learn from each other (Stiggins, 2002).
2. The
assessment procedure used in this study may have encouraged the participants to
take responsibility for their own learning by engaging them in self-assessment,
reflection, goal setting, monitoring, and communicating their own progress
(Anderson, 1998; Rash, 1997). As Stiggins (2005) states, when students actively participate
in assessing their learning by interpreting their performance, they are in a
better position to recognize the important moments of personal learning. This
helps them identify their own strengths and needs and discover how to make
better instructional decisions.
3. A
desirable aim of teaching and assessment is to encourage independence in
learners by making them capable of controlling their own learning. The
alternative assessment procedure utilized in this study propelled the
participants of the experimental group into independence by involving them in
the assessment process, decision making, and goal setting. It has been argued
that participating in alternative assessments can assist learners in becoming
skilled judges of their own strengths and weaknesses, which can develop their
capacity to become self-directed and autonomous learners and thus develop
lifelong learning skills (Brindley, 2001).
4. By
encouraging learners to observe and analyze target grammar items for
themselves, alternative assessment procedures reinforce their natural tendency
and ability to make sense of language and to systematize it. The alternative
assessment technique used in this study involved learners in doing
consciousness-raising tasks which highlighted certain grammatical topics for them
and encouraged them to learn for themselves (Ellis, 1993).
5. One
of the most important purposes of assessment for learning is the role it plays
in students’ motivation. Knowledge and understanding of what is to be
achieved is not enough. Students must want to make the effort and must be
willing to keep on engaging, even when they find the learning task difficult.
Assessment that encourages learning promotes motivation by emphasizing progress
and achievement rather than failure (Harmer, 1987; Stiggins,
2004). In this study, the participants of the experimental group were in a
position to judge whether or not success is within or beyond reach, whether or
not learning is worth the required effort, and whether they should strive for
it or not.
As for the second and third research questions of the
study, the ones which were intended to investigate the impact of alternative
and traditional assessment procedures on Iranian EFL students’ attitudes
to formal grammar learning, it was found that conferencing assessment, through
the course of the study, had significantly changed their attitudes.
Each of the following issues can be considered as a
probable reason for the change in the students’ attitudes toward formal
grammar learning in this study.
1. Experiencing
a new assessment method (Guskey, 2003; Ho, 2003; Scouller, 1996; Spavold, 2005).
Students’ previous learning experiences, mainly formed in
teacher-centered grammar translation classes, had shaped negative attitudes
toward grammar learning. Being involved in an innovative learning situation in
which the learners are asked to speak about their strengths and weaknesses in
learning different grammatical points wherein the main focus of the teacher is
to help students overcome their problems is likely to enhance learners’
attitudes toward learning.
2. Making
the learners sure that they are capable of learning (Stiggins
& Popham, 2008). Encouraging learners to talk
about the learning processes they are experiencing can help them become more
aware of what they are learning as well as how they are learning it. This
situation can increase the sense of wanting to learn in the students and
consequently affects their attitudes toward learning.
3. Providing
learners with a set of clearly defined learning goals (Stiggins,
2002). In conferencing assessment the learners are encouraged to talk about
their improvements in learning the subject matter. In this process, they are
not just thinking about what they have learnt, but how they are learning. In
thinking about how they learn, they can achieve a better understanding of the
learning goals and develop positive feelings regarding the learning processes
they have undertaken.
4. Motivating
them to learn (Race, 1995). Involving learners in the assessment and
decision-making processes is an effective way to increase their self-esteem and
motivate them to learn more. With the conferencing method, the focus of
instruction and assessment is on the learners’ ideas, beliefs, and needs
in a specific learning situation. In such cases, the learners will feel the
ownership of the assessment and are, therefore, more motivated to learn.
Concerning the last research question, the significant
difference between the attitudes of the conferencing group and those of the
control group on the post-course questionnaire lends support to the valuable
role of communication and face-to-face interaction in changing learners’
attitudes toward grammar learning. As Harris and Bell (1994) indicate,
“[a]ssessing without communication is of
doubtful value: communication between the teacher and the learner is an
essential part of the learning process and should be on a regular basis”
(p. 18). Interactive communication between the instructor and the students
during the conferences in this study might have affected the instructor’s
teaching by providing her with more information about each of the
students’ personality type, learning styles and strategies, feeling
toward the learning processes they were involved in, and their desires and
needs in the course of study. All this information helped the instructor
support, guide, monitor, and teach the students more effectively. When the
students perceived such relevance between what they wanted and what they
received from the teacher during the teaching and assessment processes, they
might have been more motivated to learn, which could have affected their
attitudes toward learning in positive ways.
The results of this study also point to the importance
of considering the learners’ needs and ideas in teaching, learning, and assessment
processes (Kaufman, 2000). Student-involved classroom assessment can be
effective by providing teachers with constant needs analyses and increased
understanding of the students’ concerns and problems. It can also be
helpful for learners by encouraging them to identify their own strengths and
weaknesses, to promote their autonomy and independent learning skills, and to
increase responsibility for their own learning. Students’ involvement in
decision-making and assessment processes can enhance their motivation by
creating a situation for optimal learning, introducing expected learning goals, providing appropriate
feedback, promoting meaningful learning, and facilitating students’
development in independent learning, which in turn can affect their attitudes
toward learning.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
impact of conferencing assessment on grammar learning of Iranian EFL students
and their attitudes toward formal grammar learning. The overall emergent
picture drawn from this study suggests that conferencing assessment has a
positive impact on EFL students’ grammar learning and can change their
attitudes toward grammar learning. Using process-oriented assessment procedures
like conferencing assessment can provide ample opportunities for both teachers
and students to communicate with each other. Hence, teachers can facilitate
learning by providing students with appropriate descriptive feedback in their
learning process and help them identify their problems. In this way, students
and teachers can work as assessment partners who have clear-cut learning goals
and specific assessment tasks. This process can lead students to take control
of their own success and to accept responsibility for their own learning. This
will naturally motivate them for more effective learning and greater
achievement. As the last word, it should be mentioned that assessment should
not be considered as something independent of instruction. To be more
authentic, assessment should be based on the learners’ behaviors
exhibited during formative and continuous evaluation and students must be aware
of the expected outcomes of instruction and assessment, the processes involved,
and the criteria on which they will be evaluated.
References
Anderson, R. S. (1998). Why talk about different ways to grade? The shift from traditional assessment to alternative assessment.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
74, 5-16.
Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment
for learning: 10 principles. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning
about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions, and directions. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Besharati, F. (2004). The impact of
alternative assessment techniques on Iranian students’ achievements in
listening comprehension skills (Unpublished master’s thesis).
Al-Zahra University, Iran.
Brindley, G. (2001). Outcomes-based assessment in practice: Some examples and emerging
insights. Language Testing, 18(4),
393-407.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language
assessment: Principles and classroom practice. White Plains, NY: Pearson
Education.
Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language
assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 653- 675.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing, 22(3), 93-121.
Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the
structural syllabus. TESOL
Quarterly, 27(1), 91-113.
Firooz-Zareh, A. R. (2006). The
effectiveness of alternative assessment and traditional methods of testing on
Iranian EFL adult learners’ reading proficiency (Unpublished
master’s thesis). Allameh Tabataba'i University, Iran.
Genesee, F., & Upshur, J. (1996). Classroom-based
evaluation in second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Guskey, T. R.
(2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6-11.
Harmer, J. (1987). Teaching and
learning grammar. London: Longman.
Harris, D., & Bell, C. (1994). Evaluating and
assessing for learning. London: Kogan Page.
Ho, L. (2003). Self- and peer-assessments vehicles to
improve learning. CTDL
Breif, 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/brief/v6n3/sec5.htm
Kaufman, L. M. (2000). Student-written tests: An effective twist in
teaching language. The Journal of the
Imagination in Language Learning and Teaching, V, 1-5.
Lee, I. (2007). Assessment for learning: Integrating assessment,
teaching, and learning in the ESL/EFL writing classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(1), 199-214.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations
and validation criteria. Educational
Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.
Race, P. (1995). What has assessment done for us and to us? In P.
Knight (Ed.), Assessment for learning in
higher education (pp. 61-74). London: Kogan
Page, Ltd.
Rash, A. M. (1997). An alternative method of assessment: Using student created problems. Primus, 7, 89-95.
Ross, S. (2005). The impact of assessment method on
foreign language proficiency growth. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 317-342.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher
perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback:
USA-Colombia. The Modern Language
Journal, 85(2), 244-256.
Scouller, K. M. (1996). Influence of assessment method on students’
learning approaches, perceptions, and preferences: Assignment essay versus
short answer examination. Research and
Development in Higher Education, 19(3), 776-781.
Spavold, Z. (2005). Using formative assessment to raise pupil
motivation: A small classroom-based study. School Science Review, 86(317), 119-123.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR
learning. Phi Delta Kappan,
83(10), 758-765.
Stiggins, R. J. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new
school mission. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 22-27.
Stiggins, R. J. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A
path to success in standard-based schools. Phi
Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324-328.
Stiggins, R. J., & Chappuis, J.
(2005). Using student-involved classroom
assessment to close achievement gaps. Theory into Practice, 44(1), 11-18.
Stiggins, R. J., & Popham, W. J.
(2008). Assessing
students’ affect related to assessment for learning. Washington, DC: Council
of Chief State School Officers.
About the
Authors
Sasan Baleghizadeh is an assistant professor of TEFL at Shahid Beheshti University, G.C.
in Iran, where he teaches courses in applied linguistics, syllabus design, and
materials development. His published articles appear in journals like PROFILE,
ELT Journal, and Modern English Teacher.
Zahra Zarghami holds an MA degree
in TEFL from Allameh Tabataba’i
University in Iran. She has vast experience of English language teaching at
different proficiency levels. Her research interest lies in issues related to
assessment for learning.
Appendix B: Conference Checklist
Directions
The following questions will be asked in a comfortable
setting. The session will be carried out in a face-to-face situation. The
students should feel safe and comfortable without any worry about the
assessment atmosphere. They should be assured that the teacher is only
interested in their thoughts, strengths, and weaknesses and helping them to
facilitate learning grammar. The teacher can ask the students to elaborate on
answers by using questions like:
-
Can you tell me
more about it?
-
What else do you
suggest?
The more the students talk, the more the teacher can
get insight on their students and their process.
Part 1
The following questions will be asked in the very
first session before doing anything:
-
What do you think
about your grammar ability?
-
Do you think you
are successful in learning grammar?
-
Who is a good
grammar learner?
-
How do you try to
learn grammar?
-
Which strategies do
you use in learning grammar?
-
What do you do if
you have problems in background information in grammar?
-
What do you do if
you have problems with the meaning of key words in the process of learning
grammar?
-
What do you do if
you have difficulty in comprehending the structure of the context that you are
going to learn?
-
What does your
teacher do in helping you to improve your weaknesses in learning grammar?
-
What do you do in
removing your friend’s problems in learning grammar?
Part 2
The following questions will be asked after covering
each unit of the book:
-
Do you think you
have been successful in learning the grammar structures?
-
What is the reason
for your success/failure in learning these grammar points?
-
What is your
strength in this lesson? Why do you think so?
-
What is your weakness
in this lesson? Why?
-
In which part do
you have a problem? Educational background, vocabulary, or comprehension of the
passages?
-
Why do you think
so? What is your reason?
-
Which strategy do
you utilize in the process of learning grammar?
-
Which strategy do
you utilize in overcoming your barriers?