Selvalegre Plus Sikament N100 2% 10% $ 152,25 Tabla No 18 Precio por metro cúbico de las dosificaciones realizadas.

In spite of making every effort to make the research sound, it has two main limitations. These arose with respect to the sampling of the population, and to the general applicability of the generalizations drawn from the findings.

With regard to the sampling of the population, I am not convinced that all the teachers were really true volunteers, as there were a number of different channels used to enlist them. For example, I invited my colleagues; my close friends who are also teachers asked their colleagues; the Korean professor who teaches the English language teaching program in the Graduate School of Seoul National University of Education also encouraged the students who are teachers of English and reading Masters’ program of ELT, to become involved in the research. Most of these teachers, to some extent, feel it difficult to say, “No.” Furthermore, stemming from a longstanding Confucian custom, Koreans believe that it might be considered impolite to refuse a request or suggestion from one of their colleagues. Some of them might have been concerned about my role as a researcher because I have been an insider in English teaching in the primary schools for a considerable time. However, I still believe that they were quite happy to join the study, I was impressed by their sincere responses and attitudes; and many of them also

encouraged me to go forward.

With regard to the generalizability of the results, 86 teachers cannot represent the whole of English language teaching in Korean primary schools. This means that others who teach English in different areas might present different views regarding the issues raised in the study. However, although these findings and their implications could be taken further by other teachers, researchers or administrators in this field, as they stand I would still argue that they provide some insights into the role of a teacher-cum-assessor in English language classrooms in Korea.

Ⅴ. Results

In this chapter, the overall results of the investigation into classroom-based assessment are divided into five sub-areas. Section one introduces the teachers’ classroom-based assessment in Korean primary schools. Sections two, three, four, and five present the relationship between Korean primary school English teachers’ perceptions of the principles and practice of their classroom-based assessment, from planning to recording and dissemination; this is in line what is presented in chapter Ⅵ in which explicit responses to the research questions are included.

With reference to the analysis of the first investigation, many propositions constructed for the questionnaire have a dual purpose; that is, they represent an element, or a specific step within each stage as well as across the whole sequential process of classroom-based assessment. These have to do with procedure as well as illustrating certain parts of the fundamental issues of classroom-based assessment. Thus, the study considers the results of each item from two perspectives: the teachers’ level of perception of it as a component of the whole procedure; and its relevance to certain issues relating to classroom-based assessment. In addition, this study also recognizes the fact that the implementation of assessment does not necessarily require a teacher to follow, and complete, all the steps presented (Rea-Dickins 2001); it depends on the purpose of the assessment. Therefore, this study will focus on the propositions which appear to apply more particularly to the teachers’ assessment. In addition, all the quotations in the sections (Ⅴ.2.3, 3.3, 4.3, 5.3)

dealing with fundamental aspects of the teachers’ assessment practice are elicited from open ended questions which appear in the questionnaire in order to support or compensate for the quantitative results of teachers’ principles of classroom-based assessment.

Furthermore, this study focuses on the gaps between what the teachers believe and how they actually performed when carrying out their classroom-based assessment. There were many items which showed that the differences between teachers’ beliefs and their practice was statistically significant; but, as statistical significance just indicates the possibility of something unlikely happening by accident, some items were not included in the second investigation because, as indicated in Table 2.2 below, they have actually been used quite frequently in the assessments run by the participants. For example, proposition 7 (see Table 2.2) was excluded from the second investigation because although the difference it highlighted between the teachers’ beliefs and their practice was statistically significant at p<0.01 (see Appendix C). Its mean (m=4.26) indicated that the teachers had actually reflected the proposition as one of their principles when carrying out their assessment. Accordingly, the selection of the propositions which were supposed to be further investigated was based on a number of criteria: first of all, they have had relatively less impact on the teachers’ assessment practice when compared with other propositions in each stage of classroom-based assessment; secondly, where the gaps between the teachers’ beliefs and their practice were statistically significant. In sum, this study investigates why the teachers did not usually put certain of the principles which they hold into practice when carrying out their assessments; and what it was that prevented them from implementing these principles in practice. All the quotations of the sections (Ⅴ.2.4,

3.4, 4.4, 5.4) dealing with the gaps between the teachers’ working principles and their practice are elicited from the interview data set (see Appendix F).