exploring classroom assessment practices: the case of teachers of english as a foreign language

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 22 November 2014, At: 06:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Assessment in Education: Principles,Policy & PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caie20

Exploring classroom assessmentpractices: the case of teachers ofEnglish as a foreign languageOfra Inbar‐Lourie a & Smadar Donitsa‐Schmidt b

a Tel‐Aviv University and Beit‐Berl Academic College , Israelb The Kibbutzim College of Education , IsraelPublished online: 23 Jul 2009.

To cite this article: Ofra Inbar‐Lourie & Smadar Donitsa‐Schmidt (2009) Exploring classroomassessment practices: the case of teachers of English as a foreign language, Assessment inEducation: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16:2, 185-204, DOI: 10.1080/09695940903075958

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695940903075958

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not 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 liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caie20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09695940903075958

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695940903075958

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & PracticeVol. 16, No. 2, July 2009, 185–204

ISSN 0969-594X print/ISSN 1465-329X online© 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09695940903075958http://www.informaworld.com

Exploring classroom assessment practices: the case of teachers of English as a foreign language

Ofra Inbar-Lourie*a and Smadar Donitsa-Schmidtb

aTel-Aviv University and Beit-Berl Academic College, Israel; bThe Kibbutzim College of Education, IsraelTaylor and FrancisCAIE_A_407768.sgm10.1080/09695940903075958Assessment in Education0969-594X (print)/1465-329X (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis162000000July [email protected]

The research investigated the factors which underlie the perceptions and usage ofalternative assessment procedures among EFL teachers in Israel. The research wasconducted within the framework of an earlier model by Hargreaves and colleaguescomprising four perspectives – technological, cultural, political and postmodern –to account for teachers’ assessment practices and beliefs. The sample included 113EFL teachers who responded to a self-report questionnaire. The model’s fourperspectives were validated using a two-stage factor analysis. Results show thatthe predominant factor related to the usage of alternative assessment is thetechnological one, followed by the cultural and postmodern perspectives. Thepolitical perspective yielded mixed results. The findings highlight the complexityof teachers’ assessment practices reflecting not merely a testing approach but asocial and educational paradigm encompassing micro constraints (technological),macro influences (political), ideologies and commonly-held beliefs (cultural) aswell as evidence of critical pedagogy (postmodern).

Emphasis on formative classroom assessment in educational contexts has brought tothe fore recognition of the primary role teachers play in the assessment process, andhence discussion of teachers’ assessment perceptions, practices and expert knowledgein the area of assessment (see for example, Bliem and Davinroy 1997; Cheng et al.2004; Rea-Dickins 2004). Subsequently, attention has also focused on trying to shedlight on the variables which impact on teachers’ assessment practices: whether theyemanate from the teachers’ local context, from their pedagogical belief systems, orwhether they are affected by forces and considerations external to the school setting(Neesom 2000; Davison 2004). This discussion is particularly pertinent in systemswhich have introduced, and are promoting, an alternative assessment paradigm forclassroom assessment while simultaneously embracing top-down standardised testing,resulting in tension between formative assessment and high-stakes external examina-tion (Brindley 2007). Leung and Rea-Dickins’ (2007) analysis of the rhetoric of policydocuments, for example, demonstrates the gap between the official assessment policywithin the National Curriculum in the United Kingdom, which emphasises formativeteacher assessment, and the discourse within policy documents which shows adisregard for central issues underpinning formative assessment.

However, despite the growing research interest in teacher assessment, not enoughis known as to what underlies teachers’ decisions to employ certain forms ofassessment over others and the perceptions which motivate their ongoing classroom

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

186 O. Inbar-Lourie and S. Donitsa-Schmidt

assessment practices. The purpose of this research is to explore these issues byexamining them within a theoretical framework introduced by Hargreaves et al.(2002), which tries to account for teachers’ perceptions on alternative assessmentfrom different perspectives.

Alternative assessment – background

While previously regarded as merely a means for providing alternatives to traditionaltesting formats, alternative assessment is presently depicted in a much broaderperspective as complementing and facilitating learning (Wolf et al. 1991; Gipps andStobart 2003; Broadfoot and Black 2004; Fox 2008). Embracing this approachwhereby assessment is viewed as intertwined with learning inevitably necessitatesthe adoption of a different set of assumptions about the goals for assessment, theirimplications and implementations within a socially-embedded environment (Filer1995), i.e., an assessment culture (Wolf et al. 1991; Shepard 2000). These assump-tions include the acknowledgment of learning as an ongoing, gradual, socially-inter-active mediated process (Shepard 2005), which employs formative assessment topromote learning gains (Black and Wiliam 1998; Wiliam 1998; Boston 2002; Black2003). Assessment is therefore viewed as a dynamic concept, situated within, ratherthan alongside, the learning process (Kozulin and Garb 2001; Lantolf and Poehner2004).

Additional premises underlying assessment cultures include a learner-centredapproach to assessment, whereby the individual learners’ needs, their backgroundknowledge, prior experiences, different learning styles, cultural and language differ-ences, are catered to using a plethora of procedures (for example, Darling-Hammond 1994). Students are given the opportunity to take an active role in thevarious phases of the assessment process, such as collaboratively deciding onassessment targets and on assessment criteria and conducting self- and peer-assess-ment (Smith 2000). The collaborative nature of alternative assessment also refers toengaging additional stakeholders or assessment consumers, notably administrators,parents and other community members, in assessment decisions and implementation(Shohamy 2001).

Thus, employing alternative assessment formats within the educational systeminvolves a significant reform in teachers’ assessment beliefs and their perceptions asto the role of assessment in teaching and learning. On the more practical level, teach-ers need to gain expertise in using a wide repertoire of assessment options such asportfolios, dialogue journals, diaries, performance tasks, projects, exhibitions, self-assessment and peer-assessment, as well as gaining expertise in matching the assess-ment tool to the purpose of assessment, whether formative or summative (Birenbaum1996; Dunn et al. 2004). Indeed doubts have been cast as to the ability of teachers tocarry out alternative assessment practices in their classrooms adequately due to thelack of training and support provided to them (for example, Leung and Rea-Dickins2007).

Though the use of different alternatives in assessment is encouraged and viewedpositively, some of its traits and attributes have been criticised. Concern has beenvoiced regarding the psychometric properties of alternative assessment tools. Specif-ically, a debate exists as to applicability of psychometric principles for determiningthe quality of alternative assessment. Teasdale and Leung (2000) argue that sincealternative assessment draws on different theoretical and intellectual sources from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 187

psychometrically-oriented assessment, existing constructs of validity and reliabilityneed to be reconsidered within the alternative assessment paradigm.

An additional controversial concept, often associated with alternative assessment,is the issue of authenticity, i.e., the attempt to emulate real-world situations by creat-ing so-called authentic tasks. It is claimed that once used for assessment purposesthese tasks lose their authenticity (e.g., Spence-Brown 2001). Alternatively, Leungand Lewkowicz (2006) argue that since schooling takes up a meaningful portion ofone’s life, school tasks are authentic in their own right and do not need to try andemulate ‘real-life’ situations. Finally, tests are also viewed as authentic assessmenttools, since they reflect real-life situations in which people are constantly being judgedby standardised tests for graduation, employment and placement purposes(Hargreaves et al. 2002).

The degree to which classroom teachers tend to use alternative means of assess-ment is determined by a variety of variables, both internal and external to the schoolcontext and to the classroom environment. In terms of the internal factors, conduct-ing alternative assessment is contingent, to a great extent, on the availability ofresources, such as time, funds, the degree to which the school environment isconducive to employing alternative forms of assessment, and the means for report-ing school progress to various stake-holders. With regard to the external factors thatmay debilitate the use of alternative assessment, one of the most prominent vari-ables seems to be the pressure exerted by policy-makers and educational authoritieson schools and teachers to reach high levels of performance measured by externaltests (Black 2003). This situation impacts upon teachers’ practices and drives theirteaching and assessment towards the more standardised formats used in externalassessment (Popham 2001). An additional external factor that may influence teach-ers’ tendencies to adopt varied uses of assessment procedures is parental pressuresand expectations regarding their students’ evaluation (Shepard and Bliem 1995; Xueet al. 2000).

Though commonly perceived as belonging predominantly to classroom-orientedenvironments, alternatives in assessment are presently gaining prominence andlegitimacy in contexts previously dominated by traditional testing procedures. Suchexamples are evident in evaluation frameworks at the national or state level, wherebystandardised tests are either complemented or replaced by other forms of assessment(see, for example, the Uniform Portfolio System in Ohio – Meyer 2001). Proponentsof such initiatives, i.e., employing different forms of alternative assessment forexternal large-scale assessment purposes, often aim for positive washback effect onclassroom teaching and assessment practices (Luxia 2007). Noble and Smith (1994)argue, however, that these constructivist-conceived assessment measures are ill-matched with behaviourist ideas of reforming and monitoring schools.

An examination of the complex conceptual variables depicted above, of whatconstitutes and affects teachers’ assessment practices, needs to be conducted within awide framework which encompasses the various internal and external variables thatmay affect teachers’ assessment practices. An interesting attempt to provide such atheoretical analytic framework can be found in Hargreaves et al. (2002), who suggestthat the time has come for a critical reflective analysis of the paradigm shift in class-room assessment. To that end, Hargreaves et al. propose a model, initially constructedby House (1981), to explore critically the concepts underlining teachers’ perceptions,views and implementation of classroom assessment practices. The following sectionwill describe this model.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


The model suggested by Hargreaves, Earl and Schmidt (2002)

The model is offered as an attempt to fathom the reasons that underlie teachers’assessment practices. It examines the how and the why, and not merely the frequencyof use, of alternative assessment tools. Hence, the model is based on the recognitionof the profundity of assessment as reflective of values and epistemological beliefsabout teaching and learning.

The proposed model comprises four perspectives that underlie teachers’ assess-ment practices and beliefs. The first three perspectives were originally set by House,while the fourth perspective was added by Hargreaves et al. (2002). The first perspec-tive focuses on the technological aspects of implementing alternative assessment inthe classroom. It includes technical aspects of time allotment and management, organ-isational structure and availability of resources. It also includes teachers’ expertise indeveloping and conducting alternative assessment, as well as possible gaps betweenhome and school expectations with regard to assessment. These technical aspects caneither facilitate or hinder teachers’ use of alternative assessment.

The second perspective discusses the cultural factor, and refers to the interpreta-tion and integration of alternative assessment into the schools’ social and culturalcontext. This factor views assessment as an ongoing and varied process integratedwith learning, with students actively involved in the different stages of the assessmentprocess. It also looks at the collaboration among the different stakeholders, i.e.,students, teachers, parents, community members and administrators. Teacherswho uphold these values tend to be more committed to the utilisation of alternativeassessment tools.

The third perspective is the political factor which focuses on ‘the exercise andnegotiation of power, authority and competing interests among groups’ (Hargreaveset al. 2002, 81). This relates to the impact of external evaluation on classroom-basedassessment, top-down monitoring and surveillance executed by standardised tests, aswell as bureaucratic interference or institutional priorities and requirements. Teacherswho are strongly affected by the political perspective are likely to conduct classroomassessment according to external standardised existing models.

The last perspective is the postmodern factor viewing assessment from the stand-point of uncertainty that characterises the present era, thus critically questioning theauthenticity, reliability and validity of assessment beliefs and practices. Such a criticalstance may cause teachers to defy the implementation of alternative assessment toolsin their classrooms.

Thus, the model takes a broad perspective with regard to teachers’ assessmentpractices, focusing on both the micro and the macro contexts. It therefore allows for acomprehensive examination of the issues underpinning alternative assessment from acritical point of view, illuminating social, political and philosophical related factors.At the same time it also encompasses local issues, such as available resources andcollaboration among the different stakeholders in the school context. As was demon-strated above, the shift into using alternative forms of assessment is not merely atechnical innovation but a deep conceptual one (Davison 2007). Since the Hargreaveset al. (2002) model is geared towards examining innovations in education it is well-suited for the purpose of examining such a shift in various frameworks. The model isalso research-based, as described below.

Research conducted among 29 teachers in Canada teaching various subject areasin grades 7–8, all identified as being familiar with and committed to using various

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


forms of classroom assessment, confirmed the existence of the four perspectives(Hargreaves et. al. 2002). However, questions arise as to the applicability of the modelin a more varied teacher sample, that is, teachers who vary in their familiarity with andsupport of alternative assessment. In addition, the research methodology practised inthe above research employed a qualitative data collection method (interviews andobservations). It remains to be seen whether similar results, that is, the existence of thefour perspectives, as outlined in the model, would emerge on the basis of a quantita-tive type of data collection and analysis. Finally, it is also a question of whether theabove results would emerge in a different context/culture with teachers from a specificsubject area. This research, therefore, attempted to measure quantitatively theHargreaves et al. (2002) model in a different setting, focusing on a specific teachersample (English as a foreign language) with varying degrees of familiarity with theuse of alternative assessment.

The research context

The research was conducted in the Israeli educational system, which consists prima-rily of state schools and is a predominantly centralised and top-down system. Thecurriculum in this setting is, therefore, a uniform one, with schools accountable tostandardised objectives monitored by external measures of assessment, mostly in theform of tests aligned with national standards. The impact of these high-stakes externalexams, used by the Ministry of Education for surveillance of students, teachers andschools, is far-reaching in its influence upon teaching and assessment practices(Shohamy et al. 1996).

However, though the system is essentially top-down, there are recent systematicattempts to instil alternative assessment concepts and approaches for both classroomand external assessment. This is especially evident in the domain of teaching Englishas a foreign language (henceforth EFL), which follows current language teaching andassessment trends in other educational systems (see, for example, TESOL 1997,2001). Following the introduction of a new EFL standards-based curriculum in Israel(Ministry of Education 2001), the external traditionally based exams at the end ofstudies (the Matriculation exams) have been supplemented by other assessment toolssuch as projects and portfolios. In addition, attempts have been made to empowerteachers in their classroom assessment practices by providing them with the necessaryexpertise in alternative assessment (via workshops and internet sites) for both teacherpreparation and in-service populations. But, concurrently, another external test wasadded at the primary and junior high levels. Thus, there are currently two forces work-ing simultaneously, and pulling in different directions, in the local EFL assessmentarena. On the one hand there are visible attempts to maintain top-down control bymeans of external assessment in the form of standardised nationwide testing. On theother hand, there are noticeable endeavours to introduce alternative forms of assess-ment and to empower the classroom teachers, providing them with the autonomy andauthority to assess their learners based on their professional expertise. Within thiscomplex reality, it is worthwhile investigating the factors which underlie the teachers’willingness to utilise different forms of assessment as well as their views regarding theuse of alternative assessment.

The purpose of the study was to investigate EFL teachers’ perceptions regardingthe four perspectives suggested by Hargreaves et al. (2002), namely the technological,cultural, political and postmodern.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Two research questions were posed:

(1) What are EFL teachers’ perceptions regarding the four perspectives suggestedby Hargreaves et al.?

(2) What is the relative effect of each of the four perspectives on EFL teachers’use of alternative assessment?

Method

Sample

Purposive sampling was employed to select teachers of EFL teaching in elementary,junior-high and high schools. The sample is representative of the Israeli context whichincludes both Jewish and Arab schools as well as secular and religious schools.

The sample comprises 113 EFL teachers (5% males; 95% females1), their agesranging from 21 to 65 (M=36; SD=10), all currently teaching in Israeli schools: 36%in elementary schools, 45% in junior-high and 19% in high school. Their years ofexperience range from 1 to 36 (M=11; SD=10). About two-thirds of the teachers(64%) are native speakers of Hebrew, 13% are native speakers of Arabic, 10% ofEnglish, 8% of Russian and 5% of other languages such as French and Romanian.Apart from the Arab speakers who teach English in Arab schools, all others (87%)teach in the Jewish sector, out of which 89% teach in secular state schools and the rest(11%) teach in state religious schools.

Regarding teachers’ level of education, 22% are certified non-academic, 58% holda B.A. or B.Ed. degree, 20% hold an M.A. or M.Ed. degree, with 72% of the teacherstaking at least one course in language testing in the course of their academic studiesor in-service training; 96% of them hold an EFL teaching certificate.

Development of the research instrument

A self-report questionnaire was developed specifically for the purpose of this study.2

The questionnaire comprised three sections. The first section included 14 items askingfor demographic details (e.g. gender, age, country of birth, mother tongue), and back-ground information related to teaching (e.g. teaching qualifications, previous coursestaken in testing and evaluation, teaching experience and current teaching context).

In the second section, participants were asked to report on the frequency withwhich they used different assessment procedures in their classes. These items, three innumber, were used to create a new variable entitled ‘Teacher’s usage of alternativeassessment procedures’ (Cronbach’s alpha .83). This section also included an open-ended question, which asked teachers to provide reasons for the usage or lack of useof alternative assessment procedures in their EFL classes. Responses to the open-ended questions were analysed and categorised by two independent raters.

The third, and main part of the questionnaire, consisted of 65 Likert-scale itemsranging from ‘completely disagree’ (1) to ‘completely agree’ (5), tapping teachers’perceptions regarding the four perspectives of alternative assessment (see Appendix1). The items were created according to the following stages, based on the Hargreaveset al. model (2002).

The first stage incorporated an in-depth reading of the model’s description in thearticle by each of the researchers independently. In the second stage, each researcher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


extrapolated the main themes for each perspective. The third stage consisted ofnegotiations between the two researchers as to the prominence of the themes withineach perspective producing a finalised version of the main themes (22 themes): eightfor the technological perspective, six for the cultural perspective, three for the politicalperspective, and five for the postmodern perspective, as presented below with theiroriginal items in parenthesis. Finally, items were written in a collaborative manner foreach of the themes, with three items per theme. This resulted in a total of 66 items forthe four perspectives. However, in the course of finalising the questionnaire, one itemwas mistakenly deleted (from the technological perspective), culminating in a total of65 items.

The eight themes extracted from the model for the technological perspective were:(1) conducting alternative assessment is time-consuming for the teachers in terms ofthe planning, implementation and evaluation (items 1,2,17); (2) alternative assessmentrequires technical school resources for development and implementation (9,10,20);(3) conducting alternative assessment may clash with a busy demanding school sched-ule and requirements (7,8.19); (4) top-down authorities (e.g. ministry, school) do notprovide sufficient professional training for teachers in the area of alternative assess-ment (11,12,21); (5) teachers lack the necessary skills in order to develop and imple-ment alternative assessment in their classes (5,6,18); (6) concerns are voiced withrespect to issues of validity and reliability of alternative assessment (3,4); (7) parents’expectations are geared towards traditional assessment (15,16,23); (8) incompatibilitybetween the traditional formats of reporting grades (i.e., report cards) and alternativeassessment formats (13,14,22).

The six themes for the cultural perspective were: (1) alternative assessment incor-porates varied tools which allows for data triangulation (items 1,2,13); (2) alternativeassessment is ongoing and integrated with the learning process (3,4,14); (3) alternativeassessment fosters meaningful learning by providing challenges and interest(11,12,18); (4) need for teacher collaboration when developing and implementingalternative assessment tools (5,6,15); (5) students are involved in the various phasesof conducting alternative assessment, including in setting assessment criteria(9,10,17); (6) parents are perceived as partners in the assessment process (7,8,16).

The three themes for the political perspective were: (1) the need for externalmonitoring by top-down authorities due to teachers’ inadequate professional testingknowledge (items 5,6,9); (2) using different methods of assessment, including tests, isa powerful mechanism for controlling students (1,2,7); (3) alternative forms of assess-ment do not prepare students for taking the final centralised exams (3,4,8).

The five themes for the postmodern perspective were: (1) alternative assessmentis more suitable than tests for assessing individual differences such as different learn-ing styles and multiple intelligences (items 1,2,11); (2) alternative assessment instru-ments, such as the portfolio, may focus more on form than substance (3,4,12); (3)since alternative assessment tasks are not confined to the classroom setting, it is some-times difficult to determine whether they reflect genuine student work and knowledge(5,6,13); (4) there is a tendency for lenient and less critical evaluation when assigninggrades for alternative assessment tasks as opposed to tests (7,8,14); (5) tests, asopposed to other assessment procedures, prepare for life and simulate real-lifesituations (9,10,15).

The 65 items, created for the above themes, were subjected to theme-based factoranalysis (i.e. four separate factor analyses) using orthogonal rotations. Theseprocedures yielded a total of 19 factors (out of the original 22). The factors in each

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


perspective are presented in Table 1 including the number of items per factor andreliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha).

As noted in Table 1, a seven-factor solution (instead of the original eight factors)was found to be the optimal structure for the technological perspective (using 7 itera-tions and explaining 80.81% of the total variance). Out of the 23 items appearing inthe questionnaire, four were omitted as they did not load on any of the factors. Allfactor loadings were found to be extremely high: 0.55 and above. Cronbach’s alphareliabilities range from 0.74 to 0.89. The cultural perspective, which included 18items in the questionnaire, converged into a five-factor solution (instead of the origi-nal six factors) using seven iterations and explaining 76.70% of the total variance.During this process, two items were taken out. Loadings of the remaining 16 itemswere all above 0.70. Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities range from 0.81 to 0.87. The polit-ical perspective, which originally included nine items, converged into a three-factorsolution with only eight items using four iterations and explaining 71.23% of the totalvariance. Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities range from 0.74 to 0.83. The postmodern

Table 1. Factors in each perspective, items per factor and Cronbach’s alpha (α).*

The technological perspective Items αααα

1. Lack of school resources (e.g. time, facilities) 7,19,8,10,9 .872. Parents prefer traditional assessment 16,15,23 .873. Insufficient teacher training provided by school/ministry/

inspectorate11,12,21 .85

4. Alternative assessment is time-consuming for teachers 2,1,17 .765. Teachers lack the necessary skills in order to implement AA** 5,6 .896. Incompatibility of report card with alternative assessment 14,22 .747. Alternative assessment has low validity and reliability 4,3 .78

The cultural perspective1. Need for varied and ongoing assessment processes 2,1,4,3 .822. Alternative assessment fosters meaningful learning 11,12,18 .843. Need for parental involvement in alternative assessment 7,8,16 .874. Need for team collaboration when using alternatives in assessment 6,5,15 .815. Student involvement in alternative assessment 17,9,10 .86

The political perspective1. Need external monitoring owing to teachers’ lack of professional

testing ability6,5,9 .76

2. Need to prepare students for external exams 3,4,8 .743. Testing as a means of control 1,2 .83

The postmodern perspective1. AA may not reflect genuine work and real knowledge 7,8,5,6,14 .782. Tests, as opposed to other assessment procedures, prepare for life

and simulate real-life situations9,10,15 .80

3. AA is more suitable than tests for assessing individual differences 1,2,11 .614. Alternative assessment may focus on form rather than substance 3,12 .73

*Factors are presented according to the order in which they appeared in the factor analyses.**AA = alternative assessment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


perspective converged into a four-factor solution (instead of the original five factors)with 13 remaining items after two were removed, using six iterations and explaining67.48% of the total variance. All items are highly loaded on these factors (0.59 andabove). Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities were found to be 0.61, 0.73, 0.78 and 0.80.

In order to validate the existence of the four perspectives according to theHargreaves et al. (2002) model, all 19 factors (emerging in the first phase of the factoranalysis) were subjected to an additional exploratory factor analysis using an orthog-onal rotation. Using six iterations and explaining 53.61% of the total variance, thefactor analysis yielded four factors which were almost identical to the four originalperspectives suggested in the model. Results of the factor analysis are displayed inTable 2.

As displayed in Table 2, the first factor emerging in the factor analysis includessix sub-factors, five of them belonging to the cultural perspective whilst one wasconnected to the postmodern perspective. Hence, this factor could be identified as the

Table 2. Factor analysis of all four perspectives.

FACTORS

CULT TECH POST POLIT

AA* fosters meaningful learning .80 .02 .17 .10Need for varied and ongoing assessment .73 .18 .37 .00Student involvement in alternative assessment .73 .22 .18 .04Need for team collaboration when using AA .70 .23 .00 .00AA is more appropriate, than tests, for assessing individual

differences**.60 .14 .49 .22

Need for parental involvement in AA .60 .05 .46 .10Lack of school resources .04 .85 .17 .09Teachers lack necessary skills in order to implement AA .00 .75 .12 .12AA is time-consuming for teachers .17 .70 .14 .00Insufficient teacher training provided by school/ministry/

inspectorate.00 .57 .33 .17

Parents prefer traditional assessment .04 .52 .12 .11Incompatibility of report card with AA .11 .39 .17 .32AA may not reflect genuine work and real knowledge .00 .05 .77 .05AA focuses on form rather than substance .04 .04 .65 .24AA has low validity and reliability*** .11 .18 .56 .14Need to prepare students for external exams .22 .09 .15 .73Tests, as opposed to AA, prepare for life and simulate real-

life situations**.01 .02 .22 .68

Need for external monitoring due to teachers’ lack of professional testing ability

.02 .03 .10 .65

Testing as a means for control .07 .09 .22 .56

% of variance 15.96 14.39 12.36 10.91Eigenvalue 3.33 2.69 2.55 1.61Cronbach’s alpha (αααα) .73 .72 .67 .63

*AA = alternative assessment**A factor which belonged originally to the postmodern perspective***A factor which belonged originally to the technological perspective

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


cultural perspective. The second factor includes six sub-factors, all of them belongingto the technological perspective. Hence, this factor resembles entirely the technologi-cal perspective. Out of the three sub-factors loaded on the third factor, two belong tothe political perspective with one associated with the technological perspective.Hence, this factor could be identified as the postmodern perspective. The last factorincluded four sub-factors, three belonging to the political perspective and one to thepostmodern. This factor is, therefore, identified best with the political perspective.Thus, the two-stage factor analyses validated the existence of the four perspectivessuggested by the Hargreaves et al. (2002) model.

Results

First research question

In order to answer the first research question as to what are teachers’ perceptionsregarding the four perspectives, means and standard deviations of the four perspec-tives were analysed. These are displayed in Table 3. In order to investigate whetherthere are significant differences amongst the four perspectives, a Multivariate Analy-sis with repeated measures was performed. Results of the MANOVA were found tobe significant (F(3,98)=54.69; p<.001), indicating that there are significant differencesamongst the four perspectives.

As displayed in Table 3, the highest mean (M=3.89) was found for the culturalperspective reflecting Israeli EFL teachers’ positive attitudes towards the use of a vari-ety of alternative assessment procedures on an ongoing basis to promote learning andto cater to the needs of varied diverse populations, while involving the different stake-holders, i.e., other teachers, parents and students.

The lowest mean was found for the technological perspective (M=2.62) differingsignificantly from the other three perspectives (cultural t=15.02; p<.001; politicalt=6.01; p<.001; postmodern t=5.64; p<.001). The fairly low mean in this perspectiverepresents the teachers’ agreement with the numerous technological obstacles whichhinder the implementation of alternative assessment in the classroom. These includelack of time, lack of resources, lack of proper teacher training, the gap between parents’expectations and the information provided as a result of alternative assessment, aswell as the mismatch between the traditional report card and the detailed qualitativefeedback provided to students when using alternative assessment procedures.

Findings for the other two perspectives show similar moderate means for both: amean of 3.15 for the political perspective and a mean of 3.11 for the postmodernperspective. These means were found to differ significantly from the cultural perspec-tive (t=8.35; p<.001; t=9.64; p<.001 respectively) as well as from the technologicalperspective, as already noted above.

Table 3. Means and standard deviations of the four perspectives*.

M SD

Cultural 3.89 .55Political 3.15 .74Postmodern 3.11 .76Technological 2.62 .70

*Means range from 1 to 5 with higher means indicating a more positive perception.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


The moderate mean of the political perspective reflects teachers’ uncertainty aboutthe relationship between alternative assessment and external standardised testing andthe place of each within the assessment framework. Partial agreement is evidentwith the belief that all assessment procedures, including alternative assessment, areactually utilised for the purpose of surveillance and monitoring. Furthermore, teachersview external standardised assessment as more in tune with real-life situations and asdisempowering the usage of alternative assessment to a certain degree. Finally, therespondents assume that teachers in general lack the necessary skills to assessstudents’ knowledge adequately.

The moderate mean found in the postmodern perspective points to certain criticismtowards alternative assessment methods, perceiving them as having low validity andreliability which includes teachers’ tendency to focus on form over substance whenevaluating students’ work, as well as the inability to ascertain whether the productsportray the students’ genuine work.

As already mentioned above, the questionnaire included also one open-endedquestion which asked the teachers to provide possible reasons for the use or lack ofuse of alternative assessment in their classrooms. The reasons provided, which werethen categorised according to the four perspectives, corroborated the quantitativeresults. Results show that the greatest number of reasons provided by the teachers fornot implementing alternative assessment fall into the technological perspective(mentioned by 80% of the teachers). Time was found to be the most hindering factor(e.g. ‘time is a major issue and we can hardly manage it’) as well as lack of trainingand sufficient knowledge in designing and implementing assessment procedures (e.g.‘teachers don’t implement alternative assessment because they lack understanding asto its importance and they don’t know how to construct alternative assessment tools’).Additional technological factors that were mentioned were lack of resources (e.g.‘…this is especially difficult considering the high number of students per class’) andthe mismatch between the format of the school report card and reports of students’achievements based on alternative tools. Finally, teachers complained that the hardwork put into the implementation of alternative assessment is not financiallyrewarding (e.g. ‘alternative is time-consuming with no financial recompense’).

Results of the open-ended question analysis further corroborate the quantitativefindings revealing that many of the teachers (60%) do not perceive the culturalperspective as constraining the implementation of alternative assessment. Most of theteachers seem to agree with the basic assumptions that characterise alternative assess-ment as an ongoing and collaborative process catering to the needs of different learn-ers (e.g. ‘In our school, assessment is integrated with learning and incorporated in thesyllabus that students and parents are provided with in the beginning of the year’).

With regard to the political perspective, only 10% of the teachers mentioned thisfactor in their response to the open question. This finding seems to match teachers’ambivalent stance as to the place and role of alternative assessment in a traditionalassessment environment. The comments that were given are evident of teachers’understanding of the power relations between standards-driven tests and forcespushing towards alternative assessment: ‘The process of implementing alternativeassessment is a long gradual one and unless the whole system recognises itsimportance and changes accordingly it will not succeed’.

Finally, a match between the quantitative and the open-ended question alsoemerges with regard to the postmodern perspective. In the verbal answers provided bythe teachers it is evident that there is certain criticism towards the shortcomings of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


alternative assessment including low reliability, mainly because of students’ cheatingand handing in work which is not their own (e.g. ‘teachers refrain from using alter-native assessment because they think it does not reflect real knowledge’; ‘the problemwith alternative assessment is that as a teacher you can not be certain that the studentdid the work on his own…and even if the teacher suspects this…she will have a hardtime proving it’).

In addition to the above results, relating to the first research question, correlationsamongst the four perspectives were investigated using first-order Pearson correlations.Results show that the postmodern perspective was found to correlate significantlywith the political perspective (r=.32; p<.01) and the technological perspective (r=.23;p<.05). In other words, teachers who are not critical towards various aspects of alter-native assessment procedures (such as lack of validity and reliability), are also lessperturbed by external factors such as the matriculation exam and the Ministry ofEducation’s requirements, and are also less deterred by technological obstacles (suchas lack of time and school resources).

Finally, correlations were performed using first-order Pearson correlationsbetween teachers’ perceptions of the four perspectives and teachers’ backgroundvariables. The only significant correlation found was between the technologicalperspective and previous studies in a language testing course (r=.20; p<.05), indicat-ing that teachers who had participated in language testing courses were less deterredby technological problems. It should be noted that the other background variablesincluded age, mother tongue, level of education, years of teaching experience andgrade-level taught.

Second research question

In order to answer the second research question as to the relative effect of each one ofthe four perspectives on teachers’ reported use of alternative assessment procedures,a regression analysis was performed. Prior to performing the regression analysis, thedistribution of the dependent variable, i.e. teacher’s usage of alternative assessment,was examined. The distribution of teachers’ reported use was found to be a normal oneranging from 1 to 4.67 (on a 5-point Likert-scale) with a mean of 3.18 and a standarddeviation of .80 (median=3; mode=3). Apart from the four perspectives entered intothe regression analysis as independent variables, an additional variable was entered aswell – participation in a language assessment course – as it was the only backgroundvariable found to be correlated with teachers’ reported use of alternative assessmentprocedures (r=-.28; p<.05). The regression analysis is displayed in Table 4.

As can be seen in Table 4, the regression analysis was found to be significant(F=6.44; p<.001), explaining 31% of the total variance. Out of the four perspectives,three were found to explain significantly teachers’ reported use of alternative assess-ment with the technological perspective being the highest (β=.29), followed by thecultural and the postmodern perspective (β=.22 for each perspective). The politicalperspective was not found to contribute significantly to the equation.

It is interesting to note that even though participation in a language testing coursewas found to correlate significantly with teachers’ usage (r=-.28; p<.05), its contribu-tion to the regression equation is a borderline case (β=.19; t=1.79; p=.07). This couldbe a result of the correlation existing between the technological perspective andparticipation in a language course, as already noted above (r=.20; p<.05). Since thetechnological perspective turned out to have the strongest effect in the regression, it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


may have diminished to some extent the impact of participation in a language assess-ment course variable in the regression analysis, as often occurs when independentvariables are correlated amongst themselves.

Discussion

The aim of the present research was to investigate the perceptions of language teach-ers teaching English as a foreign language in the Israeli context, with regard to the useof alternative assessment procedures and the various factors affecting this use. Theresearch adapted a model suggested by Hargreaves et al. (2002) which subsumes theexistence of four different types of factors related to the usage of alternative assess-ment procedures in an educational setting. The four perspectives suggested by themodel were validated in the present study using a two-stage factor analysis. Thus, thefindings of the study reinforce the theoretical framework which includes technologi-cal, cultural, political and postmodern considerations that underlie teachers’ percep-tion towards using alternative assessment practices. Hence, these results point at theintricate multi-layered construct of educational arenas whereby numerous interestsand factors interact in a mutually exclusive way, influencing teachers’ perceptions andbeliefs with regard to assessment.

Results of the present study show that the predominant factor related to the usage(or lack of use) of alternative assessment tools is the technological factor. This findingis evident in teachers perceiving the technological aspect as being the most debilitativefactor in practising alternative assessment. In addition, the technological factor wasfound to be the highest predictor of teachers not using alternative assessment prac-tices. These results highlight the importance of the seemingly ‘technical’ matters,often taken for granted and regarded as trivial and marginal. The results of thisresearch point to the importance of allocating sufficient resources to enable the imple-mentation of alternative assessment. The ‘time’ factor was found to be the most prom-inent obstacle, as noted by 80% of the respondents, who complained about alternativeassessment being extremely time-consuming. Time emerged as a debilitating factor atevery stage of the assessment process starting with the planning phase, moving on tothe delivery and administration and culminating in the data analysis phase. This find-ing corroborates previous research which points to similar results (Neesom 2000).

Table 4. Regression analysis of teachers’ usage of alternative assessment procedures.

USAGE

ββββ t(p)Technological .29 2.85**Cultural .22 2.19*Postmodern .22 2.01*Language testing course .19 1.79Political .13 1.21

F(p) 6.44***

R2 31%

*p<.05** p<.01*** p<.001

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Another seemingly ‘technical’ element included in the technological perspectiveis the incompatibility between the report card, used to inform students and parentsof students’ achievements, in its present ‘traditional’ format, and the data generatedfrom alternative assessment. The existing report card seems to have a substantialhindering impact on alternative assessment usage. This finding emphasises theconceptual differences which underlie the two cultures: that of assessment and thatof traditional testing, each oriented towards an opposing set of assumptions aboutthe purpose and meaning of students’ evaluation. In other words, changing thereport card may be perceived as a solely technical matter. However, it reflects adifferent way of conceptualising what teaching and learning are all about, andwhere assessment fits in.

Additional components included in the technological perspective were the knowl-edge and skills teachers possess for conducting alternative assessment in their class-rooms, and the amount of training provided by the educational authorities. Findingspoint to fairly low levels of training for conducting alternative assessment, and subse-quently to teachers’ self-reported low expertise. It is, therefore, of no surprise that thishad a meaningful effect on the teachers’ use of alternative assessment. Furthermore,the technological factor was the only one that correlated with previous participation ina language testing course. These findings highlight the importance of providing prac-titioners with professional training in the area of assessment literacy (Inbar-Lourie2008). Practising teachers should feel confident in their assessment knowledge andexpertise so that this factor does not hinder the utilisation of alternative forms ofassessment in teaching. It is worthwhile noting, as already mentioned in the researchcontext, that the educational authorities seem to be aware of the need to provide teach-ers with the necessary scaffolding so as to assist them in making the transition towardsincorporating more alternative assessment tasks in their teaching; such provisioncould be in the form of pre- and in-service training relating to both the theoretical andpractical aspects of alternative assessment. Findings of this research reflect theseteacher professionalisation efforts, as variance in implementing alterative assessmentwas indeed found in teachers’ self-reports, thus indicating that some training has beeneffective in filtering down to the teacher population.

The results of the current research point to the cultural perspective as an additionalpredictor of the use of alternative assessment among EFL teachers. Clearly, teachershave embraced the theoretical premises underlying the rationale of the assessmentculture. Teachers were found to be positively inclined towards the use of a variety ofalternative assessment procedures on an ongoing basis. They recognised the value ofmultiplicity, i.e., using multiple types of assessment tools for multiple purposes(Shohamy 1998) to promote learning. Teachers were also highly positive towards theconcept of alternative assessment catering to the needs of diverse populations. Thislatter principle is of extreme importance in today’s educational systems in view ofinclusive and deferred selection policies in postmodern societies (Broadfoot 1996),resulting in heterogeneous school populations.

An additional philosophical concept underlying the cultural perspective is thecollaborative aspect of practising alternative assessment. Findings of the researchshowed that teachers recognised the importance and advantages of cooperating withcolleagues in the teaching profession when designing and preparing assessment toolsand analysing assessment data. The teachers were also in favour of involving addi-tional stake-holders – students and parents – in the different phases of the assessmentprocess. Such collaborative attitudes manifest teachers’ willingness to disseminate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


the power of assessment, thus demonstrating their appreciation of the potentialcontribution of each interested party to the improvement of the assessment andlearning cycle. In other words, such conduct emphasises teachers’ beliefs in thebenefits of knowledge sharing and in the values of transparency befitting a genuineassessment culture (Shepard 2000). Findings of this ‘ideology’ and commonly-heldbeliefs were also echoed in the qualitative analysis of teachers’ verbal reports.

Further results of the study confirmed the existence of the postmodern perspectiveas one of the contributing factors in the usage of alternative assessment. In otherwords, findings showed that teachers, who hold a critical stand towards the use ofalternative assessment, employ alternative assessment tools to a lesser degree thanteachers whose views are less judgemental. This critical outlook comprises threecomponents. The first component has to do with teachers’ lack of trust in alternativeinstruments, specifically the portfolio, as being reflective of students’ real knowledgeand abilities in a given subject area. Such doubts are due to the fact that when usingcertain alternative assessment tools, especially those employed outside the classroom,there is a potential risk of students handing in work which is not the product of theirown efforts (e.g. based on copied or plagiarised work). This issue is especiallyworrisome in today’s postmodern era, with information being easily accessible viaelectronic sources.

The second component focuses on the lack of trust teachers harbour towardsgrades derived from alternative tools. This stems from occurrences whereby studentsare graded to a great extent on the basis of the external appearance of their work, thusundermining the credibility of the scores. The criticism expressed above, regarding thetrustworthiness and authenticity of students’ work based on alternative assessmenttasks, was evident in both the qualitative and quantitative findings.

The third component in the postmodern perspective relates to the psychometricproperties of the alternative assessment tools, namely, their validity and reliability.Teachers questioned these traits and clearly voiced their doubts as to the ability ofsuch tools to measure students’ knowledge accurately, and to reflect it in a systematicand dependable manner. Hence, they expressed reservations regarding the value andworth of information obtained via these tools. In doing so, teachers address crucialconceptual dilemmas as to whether the psychometric concepts and formats associatedwith tests should also be applied to other forms of assessment (Leung and Lewkowicz2006).

The shortcomings pronounced by the teachers, as part of the postmodern perspec-tive, may be partially related to their insufficient knowledge in the field of alternativeassessment, as was found in the correlation between the postmodern and technologicalperspective. Teacher expertise may assure them that when skilfully employed, alter-native assessment tools could constitute trustworthy measures of abilities. Nonethe-less, it is also worthwhile noting that such awareness, reflection and scepticism is initself a valuable and essential component of practising in an assessment culture. Suchconduct reinforces self-study and continuous scrutiny which contributes to valuable‘critical pedagogy’.

The findings for the political perspective reflect teachers’ ambivalent stance as tothe place and role of alternative assessment in a traditional assessment environment.This finding may stem from the teachers’ confusion following two conflicting devel-opments which have recently occurred in the EFL measurement arena (as mentionedpreviously: on the one hand, the introduction of alternative assessment features as partof the external assessment mechanism (project work incorporated into the external

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


speaking test); on the other hand, the introduction of additional external tests atthe primary and junior high-school levels, in addition to the existing matriculationexam. The introduction of additional tests seems to have had a meaningful ‘teach tothe test’ effect on the school system. Not surprisingly therefore, many teachers tend toagree that tests prepare students more adequately for the future, as they are commonlyused for a variety of purposes in real life such as selection and promotion. Theincreased impact of external testing leads to the delegitimisation of teachers’ assess-ment craftsmanship (Shepard 2000). Hence respondents tended to agree that theyneeded to be monitored in their assessment practices since they were lacking inassessment expertise. Teachers are thus expected to function within an ambivalentculture which endorses ‘assessment for learning’ principles, while at the same timeoperate in accordance with ‘assessment of learning’ approaches, referred to as a‘schizophrenic activity’ (Hargreaves et al. 2002, 83;). The above result of incongru-ence within the system may account for the fact that the political perspective wasthe only perspective which did not significantly predict teachers’ use of alternativeassessment practices.

Findings of the present research revealed that aside from ‘participation in alanguage testing course’ which significantly correlated with the technologicalperspective as already noted above, no other significant correlations were foundbetween teachers’ perceptions and their background variables – such as years of teach-ing experience, level of education and teaching context. This could be attributed to theresearch context, specifically the centrality of the educational system and hence,assessment system, which seems to have an overriding impact on teachers’ percep-tions. However, possibly other background variables, not included in this research,such as the teacher-training institution, may have correlated with teachers’ percep-tions. Alternatively, it could be that factors on the institutional level may have had astronger impact on teachers’ beliefs – in particular, the school learning culture and theschool assessment culture.

In conclusion, findings of this research study highlight the complexity of teachers’assessment practices. Such practices reflect not merely a testing approach but a socialand educational paradigm encompassing micro constraints (the technological perspec-tive), macro influences (the political perspective), ideologies and commonly-heldbeliefs (the cultural perspective) and finally, evidence of critical pedagogy (the post-modern perspective). Practising alternative assessment, therefore, rests on multiplefacets. The question is whether top-down authorities are aware of the intricacy of theprocess and take it into consideration when attempting to introduce alternative formsof assessment as part of the external measures. Such initiatives do not seem to yieldthe desired washback effect on classroom assessment (Luxia 2007), perhaps owing toan undermining of the complexity of the theoretical and practical issues involved, aswas demonstrated in this study.

Notes1. The overall percentage of women in the Israeli teaching force is high (around 90%,

depending on the level of education) and remains stable over the years (Zuzovsky andDonitsa-Schmidt 2004).

2. In a pilot study, the questionnaire was administered to 27 EFL teachers (91% female, agesranging from 20 to 55, 48% native speakers of Hebrew, 29% Arabic speakers, 4% Russianspeakers and 19% English speakers, all teaching in junior-high schools). Based on the pilot,the questionnaire was slightly modified.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Notes on contributorsDr. Ofra Inbar-Lourie teaches courses on assessment, curriculum design and language policyat the School of Education at Tel-Aviv University and at Beit Berl College, Israel. Her currentresearch interest in assessment is in the areas of language assessment culture and assessmentliteracy, standards for language teachers and assessing young learners.

Dr. Smadar Donitsa-Schmidt is the head of the English department at the Kibbutzim Collegeof Education where she teaches courses in second language acquisition, language testing/assessment and language policy. She is also a member of the research department at theCollege. Her research includes various aspects related to language teaching and learning.

ReferencesBirenbaum, M. 1996. Assessment 2000: Towards a pluralistic approach to assessment. In

Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge, ed.M. Birenbaum and F.J.R.C. Dochy, 3–29. Boston, MA, Kluwer.

Black, P. 2003. Formative and summative assessment: Can they serve learning together?Paper presented at the AERA conference, 21–25 April, in Chicago, USA.

Black, P., and D. Wiliam. 1998. Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroomassessment. Phi Delta Kappan International. www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm(accessed 5 February 2007).

Bliem, C., and K. Davinroy. 1997. Teachers’ beliefs about assessment and instruction in literacy,Available online at: www.cse.ucla.edu/Reports/TECH421.PDF (accessed 5 February 2007).

Boston, C. 2002. The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research andEvaluation 8, 9. Available online at: pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8andn=9 (accessed 5February 2007).

Brindley, G. 2007. Editorial. Language Assessment Quarterly 4, no. 1: 1–5.Broadfoot, P. 1996. Education, assessment and society. Buckingham: Open University.Broadfoot, P., and Black, P. 2004. Redefining assessment? The first ten years of assessment in

education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 11, no. 1: 7–26.Cheng, L, T. Rogers, and H. Hu. 2004. ESL/EFL instructors’ classroom assessment practices:

Purposes, methods, and procedures. Language Testing 21, no. 3: 360–89.Darling-Hammond, L. 1994. Performance assessment and educational equity. Harvard

Educational Review 64, no. 1: 5–29.Davison, C. 2004. The contradictory culture of teacher-based assessment: ESL teacher

assessment practices in Australian and Hong Kong secondary schools. Language TestingJournal 21, no. 3: 305–34.

Davison, C. 2007. Views from the chalkface: English language school-based assessment inHong-Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly 4, no. 1: 37–68.

Dunn, L., C. Morgan, M. O’Reilly, and S. Parry. 2004. The student assessment handbook:New directions in traditional and online assessment. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Filer, A. 1995. Teacher assessment: Social process and social product. Assessment inEducation: Principles, Policy and Practice 2, no. 1: 23–39.

Fox, J. 2008. Alternative assessment. In Encyclopaedia of language and education, 2nd ed.,Vol.7, Language testing and assessment, ed. E. Shohamy and N.H. Hornberger, 97–109.NY: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Gipps, C., and G. Stobart. 2003. Alternative assessment. In International handbook of educa-tional evaluation, ed. T. Kellaghan and D., 549–75. Stufflebeam. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Hargreaves, A., Earl, L. and Schmidt, M. 2002. Perspectives on alternative assessmentreform. American Educational Research Journal 39, no. 1: 69–95.

House, E. 1981. Three perspectives on innovation: Technological, political, and cultural. InImproving schools: Using what we know, ed. R. Lehming and M. Kane, 17–41. BeverlyHills: Sage.

Inbar-Lourie, O. 2008. Building literacy in language assessment competencies: A focus onlanguage testing courses. Language Testing 25, no. 3: 385–402.

Kozulin, A., and A. Garb. 2001. Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension of at-riskstudents. Paper presented at the EARLI conference, 28 Aug–1 September in Fribourg,Switzerland.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Lantolf, J.P., and M.E. Poehner. 2004. Dynamic assessment in the language classroom.CALPER professional development documents. CALPER. calper.la.psu.edu/publica-tions.php (accessed 5 February 2007).

Leung, C., and J. Lewkowicz. 2006. Expanding horizons and unresolved conundrums:Language testing and assessment. TESOL Quarterly 40, no. 1: 211–34.

Leung, C., and P. Rea-Dickins. 2007. Teacher assessment as policy instruments: Contradic-tions and capacities. Language Assessment Quarterly 4, no. 1: 6–36.

Luxia, Q. 2007. Is testing an efficient agent for pedagogical change? Examining the intendedwashback of the writing task in a high-stakes English test in China. Assessment inEducation 14, no. 1: 51–74.

Meyer, J.J. 2001. The uniform portfolio system as a standardized assessment tool. Field Notes10, no. 3. SABES. http://sabes.org/resources/publications/fieldnotes/vol10/f03meyer.htm(accessed 9 May 2009).

Ministry of Education. 2001. English curriculum: Principles and standards for learningEnglish as a foreign language for all grades. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education.

Neesom, A. 2000. Report on teachers’ perceptions of formative assessment. London: QCA.Noble, A.J., and M.L. Smith. 1994. Old and new beliefs about measurement-driven reform:

‘The more things change, the more they stay the same’. CSE Technical Report 373,CRESST. Los Angeles: University of California.

Popham, W.J. 2001. Teaching to the test? Educational Leadership 58, no. 6: 16–20.Rea-Dickins, P. 2004. Editorial: Understanding teachers as agents of assessment. Language

Testing 21, no. 3: 249–58.Shepard, L.A. 2000. The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher 29,

no. 7: 4–14. Shepard, L.A. 2005. Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational Leadership 63,

no. 3: 66–70.Shepard, L.A., and C.L. Bliem. 1995. Parents’ thinking about standardized tests and

performance assessments. Educational Researcher 24, no. 1: 25–32.Shohamy, E. 1998. Evaluation of learning outcomes in second language acquisition: A multi-

plism perspective. In Learning foreign and second languages, ed. H. Byrnes, 238–61.New York: The Modern Language Association of America.

Shohamy, E. 2001. The power of tests: A critical perspective on the use of language tests.Harlow, Essex: Longman.

Shohamy, E., S. Donitsa-Schmidt, and I. Ferman. 1996. Test impact revisited: Washbackeffect over time. Language Testing 13, no. 3: 298–317.

Smith, K. 2000. Negotiated assessment. In Classroom decision making: Negotiating andprocess syllabuses in practice, ed. M. Breen and A. Littlejohn, 55–62. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Spence-Brown, R. 2001. The eye of the beholder: Authenticity in an embedded assessmenttask. Language Testing 18, no. 4: 463–81.

Teasdale, A., and C. Leung. 2000. Teacher assessment and psychometric theory: A case ofparadigm crossing? Language Testing 17, no. 2: 165–84.

TESOL. 1997. ESL standards for pre-K–12 students. Alexandria, VA; TESOL.TESOL. 2001. Scenarios for ESL standards-based assessment. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Wiliam, D. 1998. Enculturating learners into communities of practice: Raising achievement

through classroom assessment. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educa-tional Research, 17–20 September, in Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Wolf, D., J. Bixby, J. Glenn, and H. Gardner. 1991. To use their minds well: Investigatingnew forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education 17, no. 1: 31–74.

Xue, Y., S.J. Meisels, D.D. Bickel, J. Nicholson, and S. Atkins-Burnett. 2000. An analysis ofparents’ attitudes towards authentic performance assessment. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 24–28 April, in NewOrleans, LA). ERIC. http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=trueand_pageLabel=RecordDetailsandERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED443868andERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accnoandobjectId=0900000b80120a01 (accessed 7 February2007).

Zuzovsky, R., and S. Donitsa-Schmidt. 2004. Attracting, developing and retaining effectiveteachers in the Israeli educational system. Tel-Aviv: Ramot Press (in Hebrew).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


Appendix I

Items pertaining to the technological perspective

(1) Applying alternative assessment is very time-consuming for the teacher(2) Alternative assessment requires much preparatory work(3) The validity and reliability of alternative assessment tools are relatively low(4) Standardised tests are more reliable and valid than alternative assessment(5) Teachers lack adequate skills for using alternative assessment(6) Teachers do not receive sufficient training in alternative assessment(7) The demands of teaching are so great that there is no time left for alternative

assessment(8) Schools demand so many tests that there is no time left for alternative assessment(9) Schools lack the means that assist in using the tools of alternative assessment

(10) Schools are not set up for alternative assessment(11) There are not enough teacher-training workshops on alternative assessment in the

schools(12) The Inspectorate does not hold enough teacher-training workshops on alternative

assessment(13) The traditional report card is not suitable for the tools of alternative assessment(14) Verbal reports are not suitable for the current format of the report card(15) Parents expect the teacher to administer tests rather than use alternative assessment

tools(16) Parents prefer standardised tests(17) The evaluation of students using alternative assessment tools takes longer than

evaluation through tests(18) Teachers lack the knowledge needed for constructing and using alternative

assessment(19) School scheduling does not leave time for using alternative assessment tools(20) Currently available school facilities make team work for alternative assessment

difficult(21) The Inspectorate does not offer enough support for alternative assessment(22) The present format of the report card makes it difficult to report on abilities assessed

through alternative tasks(23) Parents want clear ‘grades’ rather than general evaluations

Items pertaining to the cultural perspective

(1) The student’s final grade should be based on information from a variety of assessmenttools

(2) There should be varied use of assessment tools in the classroom(3) Alternative assessment enables ongoing student evaluation during the learning

process(4) Alternative assessment emanates from the perception that assessment is part of

learning(5) It is important to work in a team when developing assessment tools(6) Team work is essential in every phase of the assessment process(7) It is important to involve parents in the decisions and criteria for evaluating their

children(8) Parents should be involved as much as possible in every phase of student assessment(9) It is important that students be involved in every phase of the assessment

(10) Students should be partners in determining the assessment criteria(11) Alternative assessment challenges students(12) Alternative assessment contributes to a deeper and a more meaningful understanding

of the material(13) Data about the student should be cross-checked by using different assessment tools

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014


(14) Alternative assessment is suitable for checking students’ achievements throughoutthe learning process

(15) It is important that teachers on the staff jointly share their dilemmas and decision-making regarding assessment issues

(16) The students’ parents should be full partners in the assessment process(17) Students should be involved in the decisions and criteria for evaluating their own

work(18) Alternative assessment encourages self-learning and individual research among

students

Items pertaining to the political perspective

(1) Alternative assessment is simply another means for controlling students(2) Alternative assessment, just like tests, provides the teacher with power and control(3) It is desirable that assessment methods used in class match those implemented in

external tests(4) It is important to prepare students as much as possible for external exams(5) It is better to administer external exams because teachers lack the knowledge needed

for assessment(6) The Ministry of Education should conduct a follow-up on school exams(7) Alternative assessment allows for student follow-up(8) It is preferable to work according to the model of external exams(9) It would be better if an external institution checked teacher-made tests

Items pertaining to the postmodern perspective

(1) Alternative assessment is suitable for multiple intelligences(2) Different learning styles require use of varied methods of assessment(3) When evaluating portfolios, there is a tendency to focus on form rather than content(4) Alternative assessment is no more than a colourful folder(5) Portfolio evaluations do not reflect the student’s real knowledge(6) One of the concerns in alternative assessment is that it is difficult to know who really

completed an assignment(7) In alternative assessment, there is a tendency to give high grades which do not reflect

real knowledge(8) Alternative assessment is less demanding and provides ‘free for all’ grades(9) Students should be given tests in order to prepare them to cope with life’s challenges

(10) Tests reflect life because we are continuously being tested(11) Alternative assessment facilitates coping with heterogeneous classes(12) Meagre content may merit a high grade if it seems that the student invested a lot of

work in a paper(13) Only with a test can one tell what the student does or does not know(14) In alternative assessment, there is a tendency to be lenient and less critical when

assigning grades(15) Students need to learn to cope with low grades because it prepares them for the future

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

06:

16 2

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

exploring classroom assessment practices: the case of teachers of english as a foreign language

Documents