La construcción de consensos

Research question 3: How do Korean primary school English teachers perceive the

monitoring of their classroom-based assessment?

Ⅵ.3.1. Teachers’ principles of classroom-based assessment

In the monitoring stages, the teachers have a clear idea of the use of assessment results, obtaining consistent marks or information on the students’ achievement or progress, and the ethical considerations which must not be lost sight when conducting classroom-based assessment. However, there are still a number of issues which should be discussed.

First, it appears that the teachers felt confident about the way that they were using assessment results. They responded that they primarily used assessment results to reflect what they had done in the language classroom; then to revise their teaching (Proposition 29). They also tried to make the assessment a part of their students’ learning experience (Proposition 31). Accordingly, these results indicated that the teachers’ principles were largely in line with the argument that testing is not an isolated event but it is connected to a whole set of variables that interact in the educational process (Shohamy 1993; Shohamy et al 1996). According to Hughes (1993), this process includes material development, syllabus design, changes in teaching methodologies, and learning and test taking strategies. In this study, the teachers’ awareness about the washback effect was limited because their replies showed that they used the assessment results mainly to focus on revising their teaching methodologies, rather than to review other aspects such as syllabus design and the textbooks used. This might stem from the fact that they were given standardized syllabi and most of their materials were developed by the Ministry of Education; this might in turn have limited the teachers’ awareness of the desirability of

questioning or revising them. This is supported by the analysis that, as indicated in 2.1, the majority of the teachers agreed that they should follow the national curriculum; thus it was not strange for them to accept the textbook as orthodoxy as it is based on the curriculum and developed by the Minister of Education.

Therefore, if the ‘teachers’ are considered in terms of one of Hughes’s trichotomy (1993:2, see also Ⅲ 2.3.2) of washback mechanisms, the results of the study indicate that washback effects mainly happened to the teachers who teach English as a teacher of English. The other people who might possibly be concerned, such as administrators, material developers and even publishers were not taken into account. Regarding ‘process’, the teachers were keen to develop their teaching methodologies. In terms of these narrow-downed perceptions it is probable that the concept of washback is still not familiar to the language teachers.

Moreover, there are a number of examples of negative washback effects such as narrowing the curriculum, thus confining the scope and content of teaching and learning, losing instructional time, reducing complex thinking or problem solving skills, and increasing anxiety (Hamp-Lyon 1997; Ferman 2004; see also Ⅲ 2.3.2). This study shows that the teachers believed that they were, to some extent, free from these negative impacts of washback. For example, the teachers did not suggest that the area of the curriculum they should cover was narrowed-down because of the implementation of assessment, rather they thought of it as another opportunity for learning. In addition, some of the teachers indicated that the teachers believed that their students quite enjoy participating in

an assessment activity rather than being nervous of it. Thus, the results of the study indicate that the washback effect of classroom-based assessment might have its own mechanisms which differ from the washback effect of assessment originating from an outside institution. As Alderson and Wall (1993:122) point out, washback effects of assessment which are used regularly within the curriculum require further study.

In the meantime, this study does take issue with one of the theoretical arguments or criticisms of classroom-based assessment presented in 2.6 in chapter Ⅲ. That is, the teachers-cum-assessors tend to use a normative rather than criterion referenced approach, emphasizing competition between the students (Paul & Dylan 1998). However, this study does contradict the premise that any inconsistency in classroom-based assessment originated from the teachers’ inconsistent interpretation of assessment criteria (Brindley 2001; Clarke & Gipps 2000). The results reported in V.4.2 and 4.3 indicated that the teachers understood clearly what the criteria were which were based on the national curriculum. They also seemed to make every effort to make their marks reliable through setting up assessment criteria in advance as planned, matching assessment criteria with assessment purpose and the characteristics of the students in an assessment context; and were giving clear and explicit instructions to the students. This is in line with Hughes’s recommendations (1989: 36-42, see Ⅲ.2.6) for the improvement of reliability.

In addition, the teachers also attempt to use triangulation strategies to obtain consistent marks. They asserted that they used a comparison strategy between what they observed regarding the students’ performance in the normal classes and what they marked for the purpose of assessment. They also used, what they call, a ‘test-retested strategy’, but

sometimes they have done it more than twice, repeating it until such time as they were satisfied with their own marking. Moreover they also consulted their colleagues when they were not sure of their marks. One thing that should be highlighted here is that these strategies were not applied to all the students in the same or standardized way, but used when it was felt appropriate, based on the teachers’ professional decision. This shows that the approaches for obtaining consistent marks in classroom-based assessment clearly differ from the ways the standardized testing is pursued, although the aims of the two approaches are similar.

In the meantime, we cannot get away from the fact that the entire discussion above actually hinges on the teacher’s competence as an assessor. That is, if the teachers are recognized as qualified assessors by themselves or others involved in the classroom-based assessment, criticism would be much reduced. Regarding this, Alderson et al (1995:118) suggest three qualifications for assessors or examiners (see Ⅴ.6.1.2). Most of the teachers have enough experience of teaching English; and they have had lots of experience of taking tests during their training to become regular school teachers. For example, the teachers had to submit their official English scores to the local educational authority, such as TOEFL or TOEIC, in order to be considered favorably for employment. Also, many of them took an English test as a part of the employment test. Thus, one qualification which was neglected was getting professional qualifications from the relevant academic field. To address this issue, there should the teacher education programs be developed which include relevant knowledge and skills of assessment theory developed from TESOL and applied linguistics.

Finally, as indicated in V 4.3, the teachers were sensitive about the issue of the negative use of assessment results. They believed that there were very few, if any, cases in which the assessment results could be negatively used in the classroom. However, they were not aware of the use of assessment results by the others who are connected with classroom- based assessment. This limited understanding of the use and misuse of the results of classroom based assessment could be corrected by developing their professional ability. This would be taking place while they are continuing to gain experience by implementing the principles learned in teacher development programs in the classroom. This is another reason why a customized teacher education program is needed.

Ⅵ.3.2. Teachers’ practice reflecting the working principles of classroom-based assessment

As indicated in V.4.2 and 4.3, the teachers appear to be fully aware of the importance of consistent marking; and that this should be under their control. In addition, the teachers’ moderate attitude to sharing the findings of their assessment with other colleagues (Proposition 32) suggested a number of considerations which need to be discussed. To begin with, as indicated in the qualitative data from Teachers, Halla and Bukhan (Ⅴ.4.4), they had minimum contact with the classroom teachers. The main reasons were: the classroom teachers’ indifference towards their students’ English language learning and assessment; their lack of expertise in the area of language assessment; and their focus on ‘bureaucratic demands’ (Rea-Dickins, 2001: 449) for the report at the end of the semester. These excuses mainly originated from the teachers themselves not from outside agencies. This might indicate that there is a need for an in-service teacher development program for

language assessment which could be finely tuned to the teachers’ needs and wants. In addition, it might be timed appropriately so as to reassess the policies which have to do with the education and employment of the teachers of English in primary education, because, as shown in the previous part (Ch, Ⅱ), one of the premises on which English teaching was introduced in primary schools was that English was expected to be taught by the classroom teachers. However this becomes nominal; for what Teacher Bukhan’s responses explicitly showed, is that there was no stimulus from the outside to encourage the teachers to cooperate with the other players concerned with the advance of English education in primary schools, and even when the teachers contacted other English subject teachers, it was not a formal and planned activity but informal and irregular. This indicates that the schools, local educational authorities, and the central government should put forward guidelines and implement practical policies, which will encourage systematized cooperation between the classroom teachers and English subject teachers.

In addition, Teacher Odae’s responses, especially, signify how important the classroom teachers’ role is; English teaching might be much more effective if it were carried out within a systematic reciprocal cooperative framework which ensures interaction between the English language teachers and the classroom teachers. In addition, the response of Teacher Sobaek indicates that the participants might still be influenced by human relationships rooted in the ideology of Confucianism. Finally, the response from Teacher

Baekdu indicated that cooperation between the teachers might be developed despite the

limitations of time and space as information communication technology (ICT) has been developing rapidly. Thus, the model of ICT-based cooperation between teachers needs to