This article was downloaded by: [University of Regina]On: 16 November 2014, At: 20:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Turkish StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ftur20

Educational Policies: TraditionalForeign Language ClassroomAssessment in Turkish HighSchoolsIlknur Pekkanli aa ELT Department , Uludag UniversityPublished online: 21 Sep 2010.

To cite this article: Ilknur Pekkanli (2010) Educational Policies: Traditional ForeignLanguage Classroom Assessment in Turkish High Schools, Turkish Studies, 11:3, 465-476,DOI: 10.1080/14683849.2010.506725

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2010.506725

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 20:

39 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Turkish StudiesVol. 11, No. 3, 465–476, September 2010

ISSN 1468-3849 Print/1743-9663 Online/10/030465-12 © 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14683849.2010.506725

Educational Policies: Traditional Foreign Language Classroom Assessment in Turkish High Schools

ILKNUR PEKKANLI*

ELT Department, Uludag University

Taylor and FrancisFTUR_A_506725.sgm10.1080/14683849.2010.506725Turkish Studies1468-3849 (print)/1743-9663 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis1130000002010Dr Ilknur PekkanliEgeliegel@uludag.edu.tr

A

BSTRACT

The aim of the study is to investigate the current situation of language testing inTurkish public high schools through test development and grading procedures as well asexamining the potential benefits through the implementation of the CEFR and non-traditionalassessment procedures.

According to the Human Development Report published in 2008, the Ministry ofNational Education (MNE) was “working on a comprehensive reform program…tobetter the quality of education.”

1

One of these changes concerns foreign languageeducation. This reform is based on the alignment of the foreign language curriculato the proficiency levels of the Common European Framework of Reference forLanguages (CEFR).

2

The MNE determines the courses to be taught, the curriculum of each course, andtimetables for implementing them.

3

It also determines the textbooks and educationalmaterials to be used.

This does not mean, however, that the MNE controls every detail as teachers havesome autonomy. This can be clearly seen in the Regulation on Class Advancementand Examination in Secondary Education Institutions (Articles 16 and 33), accord-ing to which teachers choose the methods for examinations, homework, projects,and evaluation. In doing so, they are supposed to consider the objectives set forth inthe curriculum and aimed skills, clarifications and topics, if any.

4

The MNE’s main method of evaluating the effectiveness of a school instruction isthrough reports by provincial education officers on average scores or grades ofstudents attending that specific school; and by employing inspectors. However, thisapproach seems insufficient in meeting the higher demands being put on the systemby meeting European standards which use centralized exams.

*

Correspondence Address:

Dr. Ilknur Pekkanli, ELT Department, Uludag University, Bursa/Turkey.Email: iegel@uludag.edu.tr

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 20:

39 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

466

I. Pekkanli

Foreign Language Testing in Turkish High Schools

In Turkey, foreign language learning has been an important priority of the nationalcurricula for all levels of education. It is a mandatory core course from primarythrough high school. However, the number of hours per week spent on languageclasses depends on the type of high school.

For example, General High Schools (Genel Lise) prepare students for highereducation, and English classes are offered three times per week in ninth and tenthgrade only. Anatolian Vocational High Schools (Anadolu Meslek Lisesi) trainqualified people for professions and also prepare students for higher education. Likethe General High Schools, they also teach a foreign language for three lessons perweek in ninth and tenth grade only.

In Anatolia High Schools (Anadolu Lisesi) a foreign language—English, Frenchor German—is taught in ninth through twelfth grades. Certain subjects are alsoconducted in the secondary language. These schools have ten foreign languageclasses per week in the ninth grade and four lessons per week in tenth, eleventh, andtwelfth grades. This is specified in the August 2005 Official Statement Bulletin(Tebligler Dergisi) of the MNE.

5

But despite the MNE’s strong element of regulation, foreign language teachers,even if they have not had any formal training in language-testing or psychometrics,develop and implement foreign language tests.

The MNE has a website designed to provide teachers with thorough guidelines ongrades and testing.

6

Nevertheless, there is no tracking system to see how teachersare doing their assessments.

An exception here is that the Board of Education, one of the two main advisoryboards for the MNE, designed and published in 2007 and English Lesson TeachingProgram for ninth-grade students at General High Schools and, in the year 2008, anEnglish Lesson Teaching Program for tenth grade students at General High Schoolsonly. These programs guide the English teacher in what and how to teach as well astopics regarding assessment and evaluation.

7

The methods recommend include: a)performance evaluation, b) self-assessment, c) peer-assessment, d) student portfolio,and e) key for degreed scoring (inversion of scores to a five-point scale).

Again, though, even when guidelines exist they are not examined for implementa-tion and the basic regulations for elementary and secondary education have not yetbeen updated.

The Research

This section examines the current state of foreign language testing proceduresconducted at three different types of secondary high schools in Bursa, Turkey inorder to investigate two questions:

●

How does a foreign-language teacher assess the achievement of his students inthe classroom?

●

Do the present standards of language testing satisfy the basic quality criteria?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 20:

39 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Policies

467

The research data is collected from a teacher questionnaire based on languagetesting and from interviews. Five General High Schools (GHS), three AnatolianHigh Schools (AHS), and two Anatolian Industrial Vocational High Schools(AVHS) in Bursa were randomly selected. From each school, two English teachersin either ninth or tenth grade were asked to fill in a questionnaire and wereinterviewed.

The language-testing questionnaire (LTQ) consisted of five parts (See Table 1)related to language testing and other matters (See Appendix A for Part I of theLTQ). The LTQ is a structured questionnaire eliciting data in the form of rankingsin Parts I, IV and V. For these parts, the Likert scale was employed, asking theteachers to respond to statements by indicating whether each is; “never,” “rarely,”“sometimes,” “often,” or “always” true. Part II is in the form of closed-ended Yes/No questions and Part III is composed of two questions.

Results and Findings

As can be seen from Table 2, apart from the AHS, most of the teachers develop anddesign their own language tests. The means there is a vast variety of differenttechniques. For example, “Teachers may find themselves concerned with the degreeto which tests are fair in terms of objectivity. Or they may have to decide whether tokeep the tests cheap or fight for the resources necessary to do a quality job oftesting. Teachers may also be concerned about the logistics of testing. For instance,they may be worried about the relative difficulty of constructing, administering, andscoring different types of tests.”

8

Table 1.

Parts of the LTQ

Section Focus

Part I Test development and marking proceduresPart II Grading and Reporting of Test ResultsPart III Test analysis and post-examination reviewPart IV Foreign language skills testedPart V Test task types preferred

Table 2.

Percentages of Teachers Responding to the Question “Who Writes the Items or Develops the Test Tasks?”

Who creates the tests? GHS % AHS % AVHS %

The test is developed in collaboration with my colleagues 20 100 0I develop the test on my own 80 0 100Other: Specify 0 0 0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 20:

39 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

468

I. Pekkanli

Besides the point that there is no uniform test type administered, there are also noagreed marking or grading standards. As can be seen in Table 3 teachers do notfollow guidelines or checklists when preparing the tests.

Table 4 shows that even within the same school the tests are evaluated differently.Since individual or small groups of teacher prepare the test, this means they givedifferent weights and emphases to various aspects of the subject, leading toinconsistencies in grading.

9

As can be seen in Table 4 and Table 5, all of the teachers mark their ownstudents’ tests. There is no attempt to have consistency among the teachers as awhole. This would be of less importance if a standard test with open-endedquestions is used but this is not the case.

Part II of the LTQ is based on the reliability and validity of the language tests.Table 6 shows that most of the teachers have had training for testing but the testshave not been tried out beforehand.

10

Table 3.

Teacher Responses to the Question “Have Test Writers Guidance To Ensure Quality?”

How do test writers ensure quality? GHS % AHS % AVHS %

Guidelines 0 0 0Checklists 0 0 0Examples of valid, reliable, appropriate tasks 100 100 100

Table 5.

Percentages of Teachers Responding to the Question “Are Productive or Integrated

Test Tasks Single or Double Rated?”

Who does the grading? GHS % AHS % AVHS %

Single rater 100 100 100Two simultaneous raters 0 0 0Double marking of scripts/recordings 0 0 0Other: Specify 0 0 0

Table 4.

Percentages of Teachers Responding to the Question “How Are Test Tasks Marked?”

How are tests graded? GHS % AHS % AVHS %

For receptive test tasks: Optical mark reader 0 0 0For receptive test tasks: Internal group of teachers 0 0 0For receptive test tasks: The classroom teacher 100 100 100For productive test tasks: Trained examiners 0 0 0For productive test tasks: Internal group of teachers 0 0 0For productive test tasks: The classroom teacher 100 100 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 20:

39 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Policies

469

Part III of the LTQ shows that all teachers give grades according to the Regula-tion on Class Advancement and Examination in Secondary Education Institutions(Articles 16 and 33) the measurement of examinations, homework, projects andpractices are based on 100 points and these marks are converted into grades(see Table 7). The final grade of the students is the average achieved in the twosemesters.

The second question in this section is, “Do your students have the right to see thecorrected and scored examination papers?” All of the teachers replied affirmatively.Students are given their score and can request a regarding. One teacher stated thaton one test most students got low marks and asked for another, multiple-choice test.The teacher told them what they should study, grades were better, and were added tothe items on which their grade was based.

All of the teachers explained that they administer at least three written examina-tions and give at least one oral grade each semester. The oral grade is not necessarilybased on speaking abilities but can include homework, projects and class participa-tion. Part IV of the LTQ dwells on the foreign language skills tested by the EFLteachers. Table 8 displays the percentages of the foreign language skills tested bythe teachers. As seen from the results below, some of the teachers in the GHS andAVHS hardly ever test speaking and listening abilities, focusing on reading and

Table 6.

Results of the Yes/No Questions Relating to Test Reliability and Validity

Results of the Yes/No questions relating to test reliability and validity

GHSYes %

AHSYes %

AVHSYes %

Is training for test writers provided? 0 100 0Have the test writers had training for testing beforehand? 80 100 50Are test tasks pre-tested? 0 0 0Is the rater reliability of the test estimated? 100 100 100Is the instrument-related reliability of the test estimated? 0 50 0Is the content relevance of the test estimated? 70 100 75Is the criterion validity of the test estimated? 0 50 0

Table 7.

Framework of the Regulation for Student Assessment

Marks Grades Ranks

85–100 5 Excellent70–84 4 Very Good55–69 3 Good45–54 2 Fair25–44 1 Below Standard0–24 0 Ineffective

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 20:

39 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

470

I. Pekkanli

writing skills. The reason is that in crowded classes it takes too much time to haveeach student speak. Four of the GHS teachers stated that for them, teachinggrammar was more important than teaching speaking.

Part V of the LTQ investigates the test tasks preferred by the EFL teachers. FromTable 9, it is possible to observe that the teachers prefer to employ closed-ended,limited-response questions. These types of tasks are advantageous in terms of objec-tivity because the responses are concise, therefore leaving less room for personalinterpretation. These types of questions also display the students’ recognition skills.But closed-ended, limited response test tasks also hinder the measurement of otherstudent skills.

The final question in the interviews was whether teachers used other methods forgrade assessment, with the interviewer adding such examples as “self-assessment,”“peer-assessment,” and “portfolio assessment.” All the answers were negative andincluded some interesting explanations:

Table 8.

Teacher Percentages on Testing the Foreign Language Skills

Skills SchoolNever

%Rarely

%Sometimes

%Often

%Always

%

Listening GHS 20 20 60AHS 50 50AVHS 100

Reading GHS 50 50AHS 100AVHS 75 25

Spoken production GHS 20 30 50AHS 100AVHS 100

Written production GHS 20 30 50AHS 100AVHS 100

Listening and spoken production GHS 40 60AHS 50 50AVHS 100

Listening and written production GHS 80 20AHS 100AVHS 25 75

Reading and spoken production GHS 30 20 50AHS 100AVHS 50 50

Reading and written production GHS 20 20 60AHS 100AVHS 100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 20:

39 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Policies

471

AVHS (teacher 1): “How can they assess themselves or their friends when theydo not know the language themselves? They are not capable of this task.”

GHS (teacher 9): “I will never give individual project work because I do not havethe time to deal with them by checking and giving feedback. There are at least

Table 9.

Test Tasks Preferred by Teachers

Test Task Types SchoolNever

%Rarely

%Sometimes

%Often

%Always

%

Cloze GHS 100AHS 100AVHS 100

judgment GHS 60 40AHS 50 50AVHS 75 25

Multiple choice GHS 90 10AHS 33 67AVHS 75 25

Short answer questions GHS 100AHS 100AVHS 75 25

Transformation GHS 100AHS 100AVHS 100

Rearrangement GHS 60 40AHS 33 67AVHS 75 25

Matching GHS 100AHS 100AVHS 100

Interviews GHS 80 20AHS 33 67AVHS 50 50

Written composition GHS 80 20AHS 80 20AVHS 25 50 25

Oral or written reports GHS 20 80AHS 67 33AVHS 75 25

Role-plays GHS 60 40AHS 67 33AVHS 80 20

Project work GHS 100AHS 100AVHS 25 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 20:

39 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

472

I. Pekkanli

40 students in the class. If I give them a project I will never be able to achieve theprogram goals stated by the MNE.”

GHS (teacher 3): “Portfolio assessment is used in primary schools; I will not useit with older students. Sometimes I give my students homework and they can showtheir work on the classroom display boards. I do not give them a lot of homeworklike this, so they do not need a portfolio.”

Discussion of the Findings Relating to the Present Situation of Testing

The present research shows the following characteristics relating to current testingpractices in Turkish high schools.

●

Tests are school-based and teacher-tailored

●

Reliability and validity of tests are unsatisfactory

●

Criteria of fairness and transparency are not met

●

Alternative and authentic forms of testing are not emphasized

●

Lack of internationally agreed standards

The present study shows that although there is an English-language teachingprogram issued by the MEB for ninth and tenth grades; teachers still use traditionalmethods for testing. For example, these teachers have not attempted self-assessmentwhereas the trend of involving the learner in self-assessment is being used in othercountries, arguing, “When students become partners in the learning process, theygain a better sense of themselves as readers, writers, and thinkers. As studentsreflect on what they have learned and how they learn, they develop the toolsnecessary to become more effective learners.”

11

These methods have been shown tobe successful elsewhere for increasing students’ awareness of what they know ordon’t know and their motivation for making progress.

12

Several studies have also shown that the learners’ judgments may be moreaccurate—or at least closer to that of the teachers—than one might expect,especially when students have been given training.

13

The present study also shows that portfolio assessment has been underestimatedand neglected by the teachers. The portfolio is an important record including aselection of the student’s selected work. Brown stresses that students increase theirunderstanding if they are instructed to revise and reflect on the pieces throughcompositions, homework exercises, etc.

14

Table 10 displays a comparison of the current traditional assessment proceduresconducted in Turkey and the potential benefits that can be gained from non-traditional assessment procedures. This new assessment initiative in Turkish highschools may provide more appropriate contexts on performance in which a varietyof competences can be assessed.

The CEFR developed by the Council of Europe initially aimed to “permit transferof credentialing for language proficiency across national and linguistic boundaries—to allow recognition to be given outside of particular national settings for language

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 20:

39 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Policies

473

proficiency among immigrant workers and professionals.”

15

The impact of the CEFRhas been substantial because in many European countries the policy goals of theCEFR “are in fact now dominating language education at every level in Europe.

16

Asnoted earlier, while MNE has aligned the foreign language curricula to the CEFR, thevalues and policy issues relating to foreign language assessment remains implicit.

Although Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe and a candidate memberto the European Union, the MNE has not formally employed the CEFR as a basis forlanguage testing. Despite the point that the Board of Education states in the GeneralHigh School tenth-grade English Teaching Program that the desired proficiencylevel at the end of tenth grade is B1 of the CEFR, this is not sufficient because thereis a need for standard descriptors of language proficiency in all grades of elementaryand all types of secondary education institutions (fine arts high school, technicalhigh school, sports high school, etc.). In addition, Turkish students are becomingmore mobile in terms of studying and working in other countries, therefore, for thesake of accountability, there is an urgent need for internationally recognized stan-dards and descriptions of levels of language proficiency such as the the CEFR. Incases where the teachers are expected to design and tailor tests according to externalinfluences such as the CEFR, teachers try to rewrite new items by reverse engineer-ing (RE). As described by Fulcher and Davidson “RE is an analytical process of testcreation that begins with an actual test question and infers the guiding language thatdrives it, such that equivalent items can be generated.”

17

According to theseresearchers, RE is divided into five types; Straight RE, Historical RE, Critical RE,Test deconstruction RE, and Parallel RE.

In Turkey, Straight RE and Parallel RE are suitable option because teachers canproduce tests according to the CEFR, an external influence as what Fulcher andDavidson call the “mandate”.

18

Teachers may feel compelled to design tests that adhere to these externalstandards, and, at the same time, the teachers may not consult fully with one

Table 10.

Contrasting Traditional and Non-traditional Assessment Procedures

Traditional Assessment Procedures Non-traditional Assessment Procedures

One-shot tests Continuous, longitudinal assessmentTimed No time limitDe-contextualized Communicative contextStructure oriented (form over meaning) Communicatively orientedProduct oriented Process orientedTeacher evaluation Self/peer evaluationIndividual learner Pair/Group workLanguage “inside” of the classroom Language “outside” of the classroomInauthentic AuthenticDiscrete skills Integrated skills

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 20:

39 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

474

I. Pekkanli

another. If we obtain sample test questions from several teachers which (theteachers tell us) measure the same thing, and then perform straight RE onthe samples, and then compare the resulting specs (testing specifications), weare using RE as a tool to determine parallelism.

19

This way of designing test questions may help EFL teachers to better understandwhat and how they are testing.

Conclusion

As addressed by McNamara and Roever, there have been a number of studies onteacher assessment and teachers as agents for assessment. These researchers havesummed the points of the constraints of teacher assessment as follows: “Problemsinclude (a) the tendency of teachers to teach to outcomes at the expense of propercurriculum planning, (b) failure to take into account relevant contextual informationin interpreting performance against the standards, (c) the wide range of interpreta-tion and use of standards, and (d) difficulty in achieving psychometrically reliableassessments from aggregated teacher assessments.”

20

The results and findings of thepresent study overlap with these points. It can be stated that the current proceduresof foreign language testing in Turkish high schools are problematic from the pointof view of test content, test tasks, language skills tested, fairness of tests, reliabilityand validity. Therefore, this issue calls for immediate attention from teachers,administrators and especially the MNE because a top-down change imposed by theMNE can be more influential in the short-term.

According to Bachman and Palmer “test development is the entire process of creat-ing and using a test, beginning with its initial conceptualization and design, and culmi-nating in one or more archived tests and the results of their use.”

21

The effort and timethat the classroom teacher gives to developing a test depends on the intended reasonsand whether these situations are based on low-stakes (for e.g. a weekly quiz) or highstakes (for e.g. achievement test). However, under all circumstances, careful planningis needed for the following three reasons; (1) careful planning provides the best meansfor assuring that the test will be useful for its intended purpose, (2) careful planningtends to increase accountability (quality of the tests), and (3) careful planningincreases the amount of satisfaction the teacher experiences.

22

Teachers of foreign languages must carefully plan their tests in order to gain morerewards. If the teacher does not carefully plan the test: “the fewer the rewards. Atthe extreme—no plan at all except the completion of the test—there is only onereward: the completed test”.

23

In order not to fall into this trap, all teachers must beconscious of the importance and consequences of testing. This consciousness firstbegins with building teacher-training institutions where teacher candidates areprovided with efficient training in language testing and evaluation. In Turkey, thisphase is within the responsibilities the Higher Council of Education which. Anotherhighly recommendation would be that the MNE from time to time offer foreignlanguage teachers obligatory in-service courses updating the subject matter.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 20:

39 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Educational Policies

475

Notes

1.

Turkey 2008: Human Development Report

(Cankaya, Ankara: United Nations DevelopmentProgramme in Turkey, 2008), p. 33.

2. Council of Europe,

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teachingand Assessment

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).3. Eurybase Database on Education Systems in Europe, Turkey 2006–2007, http://www.eurydice.org,

p. 179.4. Ibid., p. 131.5. Turkish Ministry of National Education website, http://yayim.meb.gov.tr/dergiler/pdf/2575.pdf

(website of MNE Official Statements Bulletin Archive).6. Turkish Ministry of National Education website, http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/ogretmen/. (The Board of

Education Teachers’ Portal).7. Ibid.8. James Dean Brown,

Testing in Language Programs

(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents,1996), p. 31.

9. Lyle F. Bachman and Adrian S. Palmer,

Language Testing in Practice

(Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1996), p. 117.

10. Fred Genesee and John A. Upshur,

Classroom-Based Evaluation in Second Language Education

(Cambridge: Cambridge Language Education, 1996).11. www. eduplace.com/rdg/12. Patrick Blanche, “Self-Assessment of Foreign Language Skills: Implications for Teachers and

Researchers,”

RELC Journal

, Vol. 19, No. 1 (1988), pp. 75–93.13. Philip Benson,

Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning,

Applied Linguistics inAction Series (Harlow, UK: Pearson ESL, 2001), p. 156.

14. James Dean Brown (ed.),

New Ways of Classroom Assessment

(Alexandria, VA: TESOL, 1988).15. Tim McNamara and Carsten Rover,

Language Testing: The Social Dimension

(Oxford: Blackwell,2006), p. 212.

16. Ibid.17. Glenn Fulcher and Fred Davidson,

Language Testing and Assessment: An Advanced Resource Book

(New York: Routledge, 2007), p. 57.18. Ibid., p. 57.19. Ibid.20. McNamara and Rover,

Language Testing

, p. 226.21. Bachman and Palmer,

Language Testing in Practice

, p. 85.22. Ibid., p. 86.23. Ibid.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 20:

39 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

476

I. Pekkanli

Appendix A

Language Testing Questionnaire Part I

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

1. I develop the test in collaboration with my colleagues2. I develop the test on my own3. Other: Specify4. I use guidelines while I am designing the test5. I use checklists while I am designing the test6. I use examples of valid, reliable, and appropriate tasks while I am designing the test7. For receptive test tasks I use an optical mark reader8. I mark receptive test tasks with a group of EFL teachers from my school9. I mark receptive test tasks on my own10. For productive test tasks a group of trained examiners are used11. I mark productive test tasks with a group of EFL teachers from my school12. I mark productive test tasks on my own13. I mark productive or integrated test tasks on my own14. Productive or integrated test tasks are rated simultaneously by two teachers15. Productive or integrated test tasks whether written or recorded are double marked with two teachers16. Other: specify

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 20:

39 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014