Disfunciones y paradigmas

Research Question 2: How do Korean primary school English teachers perceive the

implementation of their classroom-based assessment?

Ⅵ.2.1. Teachers’ principles of classroom-based assessment

As discussed in the foregoing part, (Chapter Ⅲ 2.4), for an assessment to be considered ‘good’ it must be actualized through valid procedures; that is, it cannot be expected to produce a valid result or information on what the students know or can do without the way in which the assessment is being conducted based on the procedures which are considered to be reasonable. This is the reason why a number of language testing or assessment experts emphasize certain systematic processes or criteria of language assessment and introduce their own ideas of these (see, Linn et al 1991; Alderson et al 1995; Hall et al 1997; Luoma 2001; Rea-Dickins 2001; Brown & Hudson 2002; Leung & Mohan 2004; Gottlieb 2006). In sum, in the implementation stages, the teachers’ perceptions are generally in line with the principles presented in this study; they have a clear idea of what valid procedure and ethical assessment is. From this arise a number of issues; these should be discussed.

Regarding the matter of introducing assessment, the teachers were particularly interested in the relationship between assessment and the students learning of English. This emphasis on assessment as an integral part of the learning process indicates that the teachers did not experience any tension between the role of a facilitator of language development and that of a judge of students’ language achievement (Rea-Dickins 2004:

253). This might be considered to be a dilemma inherent in becoming a teacher-cum- assessor. That is, what this study has revealed so far is that any assessors who do have teaching experience would be open to learning about the purposes of assessment and principles governing its implementation. In addition, the results regarding the students’ understanding of the desired outcomes of the assessment tasks, (Proposition 20) show that the teachers were well aware of one of the characteristics of classroom-based assessment discussed in Chapter 4.3; namely, that classroom-based assessment is outcome-based assessment.

In addition, teachers believed that the students should know how to complete the tasks and tried to carry out the assessment within an expected time frame. Here, they seemed to play a part as an ‘interpreter’ (Davison 2004: 325) who sticks to what the guide prescribes. Accordingly, the results regarding explicit instruction of how to do the assessment tasks (Proposition 19) and task completion within a expected time (Proposition 24) indicate that the teachers’ principles of assessment are in line with one of the characteristics of classroom-based assessment; namely that classroom-based assessment is influenced by the national curriculum as well as the school curriculum. This was discussed in Chapter.4.3. However, the teachers were not aware that these propositions were relevant to the assessment protocol of classroom-based assessment. This indicates that there is a need to provide teachers with opportunities to acquire the requisite theories and skills as these are necessary qualifications of good assessors (Rea- Dickins & Rixon 1999).

Finally, with reference to the scaffolding set up during assessment activity, although the teachers agreed that students should be supported when they have a problem hindering their completing the assessment tasks (Proposition 21), they were not convinced that it was happening. Moreover a number of teachers thought that assisting certain students is unfair, and assessment should be carried out rigorously under the same conditions for all the students. This indicates that they were still influenced by standardized testing which are mainly used for screening and comparing the testees based on a norm. The teachers did not seem to recognize that, as Leung and Mohan (2004: 353) argue, classroom-based assessment is not a process where an isolated student solves the question without assistance; the students’ results are provisional not final. This is a distinctive characteristic of classroom-based assessment.

Ⅵ.2.2. Teachers’ practice reflecting the working principles of classroom-based assessment

As indicated in V.3.2 and 3.3, the teachers appear to fully understand how important the implementation stage was. In addition, the teachers’ moderate attitude to providing their students with immediate feedback after they complete the given tasks (Proposition 23) suggested a number of considerations which need to be discussed. The most frequently mentioned reasons are: the matter of the time allocated to English teaching, and the number of students the teachers teach in a week. However, these issues cannot be addressed by an individual teacher because the teaching load and the number of students in a class are decided by law and by rules which are generally established outside the school and classroom. Thus, teachers appear to have no choice but to work within the

parameters that are imposed from above. This also shows the contextual specificity of this study, a central government driven English education system. Put simply, these are issues which teachers have almost no power to change. Also, Teacher Jiri’s reason (V.3.4) indicates that the participants were under the pressure of their quite strong feelings about bureaucratic demands (Rea-Dickins, 2001).

In the meantime, the response of Teacher Gaya (V.3.4) showed a somewhat different excuse for not giving immediate feedback as it originated not from external factors, but from an internal one, his own reflection on his assessments. In addition the response of Teacher Mindung indicates that this teacher was concerned about the quality of her feedback. That is, this teacher carefully checked her marks or decision regarding the students’ performance, and because of this, she often increased the number of times assessments were carried out until she was sure of her decision about the students’ progress or achievement. This is also relevant to the issue of the reliability of the teachers’ assessment; in the case of this teacher’s assessments they might be considered to be very reliable. Thus, what was common to each of these two teachers was that the reasons which they put forward stemmed from their own considered concerns. That is, what they were doing was to act as ‘reflective practitioners’ (Schon, 1983). This evidence contradicts the argument that classroom-based assessment run by the teachers as assessors was generally superficial (Crooks 1988; Black 1993; Paul & Dylan 1998); it also calls into question the idea that with classroom-based assessment, ‘… there is little reflection on what is being assessed’ (Paul & Dylan, 1998: 8).