When it comes to language assessment, test developers and specialists usually have an influential role and voice in designing assessment procedures and tests. However, classroom teachers have a very limited role or sometimes even no role in the design phase of assessment but rather their perceived role has been limited to administer those assessment practices or tests in the classroom (Graves, 1996; and Shohamy, 2001). Currently, there is a growing tendency to involve other stakeholders such as the teachers in test design and development (Shohamy, 2001; and Troudi et al., 2009).
According to Lambert and Lines (2001) the formative role of assessment is to provide teachers with feedback on progress in order to support future teaching and learning. However, this study is more interested in the role of the teacher in the assessment practices available in his/her place of work. Shohamy (2006, p.87) argues that this role is usually marginalised and states that “[i]n most cases, teachers are viewed as bureaucrats; they are being used by those in authority to carry out testing policies and thus become servants of the system”. However, carrying out and administering tests is not a simple process. Fulcher (2010)
describes how test administration is a huge responsibility for teachers as they have to design the test and produce multiple designs in order to be used on the exam day. In certain departments, disciplines and large testing settings, conducting tests may require administrative overhead and extensive management by the teacher, in which case, teachers may need to secure sufficient copies of each test version and ensure that they are distributed correctly to the test takers. Proctoring exams may also be complicated and require a great deal of coordination and supervision. Guaranteeing the security and confidentiality of tests is also the responsibility of the teachers, which can sometimes include the transportation of materials to the test venue. In some cases, teachers also have to make sure that the test venue is suitable for the exam by, for example, making sure that the room temperature is suitable, that all the CD players are in working order, that lighting is sufficient in the rooms and also ensuring the desks are placed correctly to minimise the chances of cheating. In addition to the responsibility of arranging and scheduling invigilators to help on the day of the test, teachers need to check the identity of each of the test takers and work out a mechanism to do that efficiently. Access to students with disabilities or students that need special assistance may also need to be
coordinated by the teacher. All in all, the testing process may be so complicated that the teacher may be overwhelmed and confused as to what exactly their responsibilities are, in relation to other academic administrators in the testing venue or the school.
Recent advances in technology have also been employed to help teachers and administrators though this may well have added complexity, especially to less technically savvy teachers. The field of electronic assessment, or e-assessment,
has gained wide academic attention in past decades. E-assessment refers to the use of information technology (IT) to deliver exams. Many international exams such as the TEOFL and IELTS, now use various IT-based technologies to test
individuals.
Fulcher (2010) sums up this idea by stating that “it is a complex planning process” (p.253). Here, I argue that all of the previous responsibilities should not be the reason to exclude teachers from other valuable roles in designing and developing assessment procedures in their workplace. Stiggins (2004) also argues that there's a common mistaken belief that “teachers and administrators don’t need to know about and understand the principles of sound assessment practice the professional testing people will take care of that for us” (p.26). He continues stating that usually in teacher training programmes, teachers are not well-prepared to assess their students accurately and that institutions make an effort to exclude them from testing and assessment. He claims that over the past sixty years, school leaders and teachers were not being trusted to accurately assess their students as the society usually demands that third-party, considered more objective, assess the students in order to avoid any alteration of the scores that the teachers might impose in favour of their students. The idea of teachers’ limited knowledge about assessment, also known as assessment literacy, is an issue of concern that has been discussed in the literature as well as the issue of teacher preparation programmes not giving enough attention to assessment (Christie, Devlin, Freebody, Luke, Martin & Threadgold, 1991; Louden, Rohl, Gore, McIntosh, Greaves, & Wright, 2005; and Coombe et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, the lack of extensive research on the role of teachers in terms of assessment is evident and supported by a great number of academic studies, including, for instance, the work by Troudi et al. (2009) in Kuwait and the United Arabic Emirates regions that have started to attract renewed attention by regional and global researchers. Teachers’ understanding of assessment and their position remain under-explored; however, Coombe et al. (2012), in this particular study, utilised qualitative approaches to examine the role of EFL teachers in assessment in these two countries. The authors used open-ended questionnaires and found that teachers’ knowledge of language learning impacted on their views on
assessment. Furthermore, and more importantly, the administrative hierarchy in the examined institution, which can often be described as bureaucratic, can limit the teachers’ role in assessment.
Stiggins (2004, p.26) adds “[w]e told teachers to teach and not to worry about assessment: someone else will cover that. In addition, we likewise told assessment people: you test and you don’t need to know anything about teaching”. This
resulted in building a wall between people who assess the students and the teachers themselves. It also resulted in two issues: (1) a lack of understanding of both assessment and instruction and (2) by ignoring to include assessment training into their training curriculum, it resulted in teacher training programmes that fail to prepare teachers to assess their students accurately. Stiggins (2004) continues stating that ongoing professional development programmes also failed to prepare teachers with the knowledge they need to conduct assessment practices
effectively. Unfortunately, such programmes sometimes try to disguise the problem by providing the teachers with ‘ready-made’ tests, which are usually developed disregarding the actual teaching and the various students’ needs. In other cases, the teachers themselves try to develop their own assessment procedures;
however, because teachers are not trained to do so, the tests are sometimes inaccurate and with a considerable amount of mistakes.
Stiggins (2004) proposed several solutions to this issue arguing that teachers should have adequate knowledge of sound assessment practices thereby enabling them to assess their students accurately and efficiently. He states that teacher training programmes should prepare teachers for assessment by involving them in assessment-related activities. Teachers need to be assessment literate thereby understanding the principles of sound assessment. In addition to that, they should remain up-to-date with issues pertaining to assessment through continuous
professional development. By gaining such skills, teachers can make more informed choices in their classroom on a day-to-day basis. Sangster and Overall (2006) also argue that teachers need to be more involved in the assessment process by being concerned about a variety of needs, such as, for example, the demands of outside agencies that would require an ongoing status of the students’ progress. In this regard, it is worth noting here that, with respect to this study, such
agencies are similar to the different departments and schools within the university. In addition to that, teachers need to maintain an ongoing assessment model that benefits the students themselves and their learning, which is described in the literature as continuous and summative assessment.
Irons (2007) argues that there is too much emphasis on summative assessment in higher education and that the learning environment needs to shift away from testing and the judgmental culture associated with summative assessment.
Another stakeholder that needs to be taken under consideration when developing and administering assessment is the student. Students’ self-assessment, for instance, has been found to increase academic performance and achievement as supported by Black and William (1998) and White and Frederiksen (1998).
Rolheisier and Ross (2001) reviewed the potential impact of students’ self- evaluation on student performance and noted that teachers with the ability to encourage students’ self-evaluation and peer assessment are more successful in managing and accessing a class in addition to the traditional skills of managing tests and examinations. Although students’ self-assessment cannot provide what is needed to assign grades, it can definitely encourage students’ involvement and participation. Therefore, Rolheisier and Ross (2001) presented a theoretical model behind self-evaluation arguing that such model may help students set higher goals for themselves, commit more personal efforts to demonstrate a competitive
performance among others, encourage self-judgement and stimulate self-thought and contemplation. I would like to argue that allowing students to take
responsibility and ownership of their learning involves encouraging dialogue between them and their teachers as well as among themselves to enhance their overall learning experience.