Learners' Self-assessment of their Oral Performance in EFL Classrooms: The Case of Wollega...

Learners’ Self-assessment of their Oral

Performance in EFL Classrooms:

The Case of Wollega University

Rufael Disasa Worabu

Addis Ababa University

Addis Ababa

June 2013

Learners’ Self-assessment of their Oral Performance in EFL

Classrooms: The Case of Wollega University


A Doctoral Thesis Submitted to

The Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures

Presented in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of

Philosophy in Teaching English as Foreign Language (TEFL)

Addis Ababa University

Addis Ababa

June 2013

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Rufael Disasa entitled: ‘Learners’

Self-assessment of Oral Performance in University EFL Classrooms: the case of Wollega

University’ submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor

of Philosophy in Teaching English as a Foreign Language complies with the

regulations of the University and meets the accepted standards with respect to originality

and quality.

Signed by the Examiners Committee:

Examiner _________________________ Signature ___________ Date ___________

Examiner _________________________ Signature ___________ Date ___________

Advisor __________________________ Signature ___________ Date ___________

_____________________________________________________________

Chair Person, Department Foreign Languages and Literature

iii

Abstract

This thesis reports a study of conception and validity of learners’ self-assessment of English

oral performance and the effect of training learners in self-assessment on the validity and the

conception in university EFL classrooms.

In the study, the concurrent mixed methods design was opted for to address different questions

and to validate the finding through data triangulation. In the qualitative aspect, group and

individual interviewing was employed to study the conceptions, and in the quantitative part of

the study, single-group experiment design that involved training learners in self-assessment of

English oral performance was used to study the validity of learners’ self-assessment.

Questionnaire survey was used to supplement the data from interview. The subjects of the

study were 46 2nd

year EFL learners and 19 EFL instructors in the English program of

Wollega University. Data were collected through self-developed interview schedule, oral

performance assessment tools and questionnaires. Training materials for the students and the

instructor were also developed and used in the experiment. Individual interviews were

conducted with five purposively selected instructors; and group interviews were conducted

with eight students before and after an intervention. English oral performance assessments in

which the students self-assessed their own performance in classroom were administered to the

students prior to and after the training intervention. The training was explicit and integrated

into Spoken English II (Enla 342). It was conducted for six weeks (two-hours/week).

The data from the interviews were analysed and interpreted qualitatively following the

qualitative content analysis approach on the bases of the themes that constituted the

conception of learner self-assessment. The data from the performance assessment and the

questionnaires were analysed quantitatively using descriptive and inferential statistics. The

extent of validity of learners’ self-assessment was determined by comparing the mean values

of learners’ self-scoring with the instructors’ scoring of the oral performances using the

paired-samples t-test. Similarly, the effect of the training on students’ conception was

evaluated by comparing the findings from the qualitative analysis of the data on conception

before and after the training.

The analysis of data on the subjects’ conception of learners’ self-assessment indicated that

both groups of subjects held less positive conception of learners’ self-assessment. They had

the belief and understanding that classroom assessment is carried out primarily to check off

and to describe learning outcomes; they described learners’ self-assessment in its non-

technical and simplest level; and they could identify only few benefits of involving learners in

assessment scheme. They also held the belief that doing classroom assessment is the

responsibility of the instructor only and students should not participate in the complete process

of assessment because learners’ self-assessment cannot be trustworthy. Analysis of the scores

of the English oral performance prior to the intervention indicated that the learners

considerably overrated their own performance as compared to their instructor’s scoring. The

iv

analysis of the post intervention data indicated that the students’ conception was improved,

and the difference between the learners’ scores of their own performance and that of the

instructor was not statistically significant; indicating that the training positively influenced the

learners’ conception and validity of their self-assessment. The result of study suggested that to

encourage the use of learners’ self-assessment in classrooms, both the instructors and the

students need to be provided with opportunity of exposure to explicit teaching and practices of

learners’ self-assessment.

v

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to a number of persons among whom I mention a few just because of the space,

and I hope the rest would understand me that I am grateful to them for their invaluable

contribution to my success in this study.

First of all, my heart-felt gratitude goes to my supervisor Dr. Nuru Mohammed-Tahir who

helped me unreservedly just from the scratch to the final stage of my work. Without his

guidance, it would have been difficult for me to successfully accomplish my work. I am also

grateful to Dr. Taye Regassa, Dr. Mendida barkessa and Ato Tibebe Alemayehu for their

invaluable comments and suggestions during the examination of the proposal and the pilot

work.

Next, my deepest appreciation is to my wife Wubayehu Kitessa and my children Naol,

Umeran and Lemifol for their patience and persistent moral support throughout the duration of

my study. I owe special thank to my wife for carrying all the burden of managing the family

and making all arrangements for my study leave, leaving her personal needs aside.

I would like to extend my thanks to the students and the instructors in the English program of

Wollega University for their cooperation during the data collection. I am also grateful to Dr.

Fikiru Tafesse (MD), Tesfaye Dechasa, Adeko Wolde and Ebissa Dhaba for reading and

commenting on the instruments and materials developed for the study, and for coming in with

financial, moral and material support whenever I need them. Finally, my thanks go to

Maddalena Taras, University of Sunderland, UK and Mark Winterbottom, University of

Cambridge, for their support in providing me with information and materials.

vi

Dedication

To the memory of my parents Adde Zawditu Yadessa and Obbo Disasa Worabu who were

longing for my success as a student and did all their best to make a man of me and inspired

me with determination and tolerance. Mom, Dad, I believe that you are looking on me down

from the heaven, and dedicated this work to your honour.

vii

Table of Content

page

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... v

List of tables and figure ............................................................................................................ xv

Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................. xvii

Chapter One

Background of the Study

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Organisation of the Thesis ........................................................................................... 2

1.2 Educational Context of the Study ................................................................................ 3

1.3 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 7

1.4 Rationale of the Study .................................................................................................. 9

1.5 Objectives of the Study .............................................................................................. 11

1.6 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 12

1.7 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 13

Chapter Two

Review of Related Literature

2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 15

viii

2.1 Major Developments in Assessment Tradition .......................................................... 15

2.2 Learners’ Self-Assessment ......................................................................................... 22

2.2.1 Description and Typology of Learners’ Self-assessment .......................................23

2.2.2 LSA in University EFL Classrooms .......................................................................29

2.2.3 LSA and Learning...................................................................................................32

2.2.4 LSA and Learning Gains ........................................................................................38

2.3 Issues Related to LSA ................................................................................................ 41

2.3.1 Validity and Reliability ..........................................................................................42

2.3.1.1 Reliability of LSA ........................................................................................... 42

2.3.1.2 Validity of LSA ............................................................................................... 42

2.3.1.3 Determinants of Validity of LSA .................................................................... 47

2.3.2 Conception of LSA .................................................................................................49

2.3.2.1 The Concept of Conception ............................................................................ 49

2.3.2.2 Conception and Practice .................................................................................. 50

2.3.2.3 Conceptions of LSA ........................................................................................ 52

2.3.3 Training Learners to Self-assess..............................................................................55

2.4 Assessment of Oral Performance ............................................................................... 59

2.4.1 Performance Assessment.........................................................................................59

2.4.2 Assessing Oral Performance ...................................................................................60

2.4.2.1 Defining Constructs of oral Performance ....................................................... 61

2.4.2.2 Measuring the Constructs of Oral Performance .............................................. 64

2.4.2.3 Rating Scales for Oral Performance ................................................................ 67

2.4.2.4 Tasks for Assessing Oral Performance ........................................................... 68

ix

2.5 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 70

Chapter Three

Methodology

3.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 71

3.1 Approach to the Study ................................................................................................ 71

3.2 Design of the Study .................................................................................................... 72

3.2.1 Interviewing.............................................................................................................72

3.2.2 Single-group quasi-Experiment...............................................................................74

3.2.3 Questionnaire Survey .............................................................................................75

3.3 Population and Subjects of the Study......................................................................... 75

3.4 Instruments ................................................................................................................. 78

3.4.1 The Interview Schedule...........................................................................................80

3.4.2 The Questionnaire ...................................................................................................81

3.4.3 The Training Materials............................................................................................84

3.4.4 The Oral Performance Assessment Tools...............................................................87

3.4.4.1 The Tasks ........................................................................................................ 87

3.4.4.2 The Marking Scheme ...................................................................................... 88

3.5 Data Gathering Procedure .......................................................................................... 88

3.5.1 The Pre-intervention Stage......................................................................................89

3.5.2 The Intervention (Training).....................................................................................92

3.5.3 The post-intervention Stage....................................................................................94

3.6 Data Analyses Procedure ........................................................................................... 95

x

3.6.1 The Qualitative Data...............................................................................................95

3.6.2 The Quantitative Data.............................................................................................97

3.7 The Pilot Study ........................................................................................................... 98

3.7.1 Summary of the Pilot Study.....................................................................................99

3.7.2 Lesson Learnt from the Pilot Study.........................................................................99

3.8 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 103

Chapter Four

Data Presentation and Analysis

4.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 104

4.1 Conceptions of LSA ................................................................................................. 104

4.1.1 The Instructors’ Conception of LSA.....................................................................104

4.1.1.1 Data from the Interview ................................................................................ 104

4.1.1.1.1 Main Purpose of Classroom Assessment .................................................. 105

4.1.1.1.2 Who is Responsible for Classroom Assessment ....................................... 110

4.1.1.1.3 Description of LSA ................................................................................... 111

4.1.1.1.4 Appropriateness of Involving Learners in Assessment Process ............... 112

4.1.1.1.5 Validity of LSA ........................................................................................ 114

4.1.1.1.6 Benefits and/or Downsides of LSA .......................................................... 115

4.1.1.2 Data from the Questionnaire ......................................................................... 117


4.1.1.2.2 Whether or not students should be involved in the assessment scheme 120


xi

4.1.1.2.4 Validity of LSA ........................................................................................ 122

4.1.1.2.5 Significance of LSA ................................................................................. 123

4.1.1.2.6 Relevance of LSA ..................................................................................... 126

4.1.2 Students’ Conception of LSA................................................................................127

4.1.2.1 Data from the Interviews ............................................................................... 128

4.1.2.1.1 Summary of the Finding from CoPre1 Interview ...................................... 128

4.1.2.1.2 Data from Pre-intervention Interview (CoPre2) ........................................ 130

4.1.2.1.2.1 Main Purpose of Classroom Assessment ........................................... 130

4.1.2.1.2.2 Who Should Do the Assessment ........................................................ 133

4.1.2.1.2.3 Description of LSA............................................................................. 134

4.1.2.1.2.4 Appropriateness of Involving Learners in Assessment Process ......... 135

4.1.2.1.2.5 Validity of LSA .................................................................................. 136

4.1.2.1.2.6 Benefits and/or Problems of LSA....................................................... 137

4.1.3 Effect of the Training Intervention on Students’ Conception of LSA..................138

4.1.3.1 Data from Post-intervention Interview .......................................................... 138


4.1.3.1.2 Who Should Do the Classroom Assessment ............................................ 141


4.1.3.1.4 Appropriateness of Involving Learners in Assessment Process ............... 143

4.1.3.1.5 Validity of LSA ........................................................................................ 144

4.1.3.1.6 Benefits and/or Problems of LSA ............................................................. 145

4.1.3.2 Data from Students Questionnaires ............................................................... 149


xii

4.1.3.2.2 Whether Students should be Involved in the Assessment Scheme ........ 153


4.1.3.2.1 Validity of LSA ........................................................................................ 156

4.1.3.2.2 Benefits and/or Problems of LSA ............................................................. 158

4.1.3.2.3 Relevance of LSA ..................................................................................... 162

4.2 Validity of LSA of English Oral Performance ......................................................... 163

4.3 Effect of the Training on Validity of LSA of English Oral performance ................ 166

4.4 Summary of the findings from the Post Intervention Data from the Non-Experiment

Group........................................................................................................................ 167

4.4.1 Summary of Result of the interview......................................................................168

4.4.2 Summary of the result of the data from oral performance assessment (non-

experiment group)..................................................................................................169

4.5 Discussions of the Findings ..................................................................................... 170

4.5.1 Conception of LSA................................................................................................170

4.5.1.1 The Instructors’ Conception of LSA ............................................................. 171

4.5.1.2 The Students’ Conception of LSA before the intervention ........................... 174

4.5.1.3 Validity of LSA of English Oral Performance .............................................. 177

4.5.2 The Effect of the Training.....................................................................................179

4.5.2.1 On the Validity of LSA ................................................................................. 179

4.5.2.2 On the Students’ Conception of LSA............................................................ 180

4.6 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 182

xiii

Chapter Five

Summary and Conclusions

5.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 184

5.1 Summary .................................................................................................................. 184

5.2 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 186

5.3 Implications .............................................................................................................. 189

5.3.1 Implication for Classroom.....................................................................................190

5.3.2 Implication for in-service and pre-service Teacher Training and Development _ 192

5.4 Limitations of this Study .......................................................................................... 193

5.5 Recommendation for Further Research ................................................................... 195

References........................................................................................................................197

Appendices

Appendix 1: Students’ and instructors’ interview schedule ................................................... 214

Appendix 2 Instructors’ interview Transcript ......................................................................... 215

Appendix 2A: Instructor A ................................................................................................... 215

Appendix 2B: Instructor B ..................................................................................................... 218

Appendix 2C: Instructor C ...................................................................................................... 221

Appendix 2D: Instructor D ..................................................................................................... 223

Appendix 2E: Instructor E ...................................................................................................... 225

Appendix 3 Students’ Pre-intervention interview transcript ................................................. 227

xiv

Appendix 4 Students’ post intervention interview transcript ................................................. 234

Appendix 5: Questionnaire filled out by students .................................................................. 240

Appendix 6 Questionnaire filled out by instructors ................................................................ 243

Appendix 7 Training Material (learners’ Handout) ................................................................ 246

Appendix 8 Training Material (Instructor’s Guide) ............................................................... 266

Appendix 9: Marking Scheme for students ............................................................................ 286

Appendix 10 : Marking scheme for instructor ........................................................................ 288

Appendix 11 ............................................................................................................................ 292

Appendix 12 ............................................................................................................................ 298

xv

List of tables and figure

page

Table 1 Major shifts in the assessment tradition ----------------------------------------------------- 21

Table 2 Correspondence between the behaviours studied and the instruments employed ---- 79

Table 3 Category of Purposes of Classroom Assessment (by instructors) ---------------------- 107

Table 4 Benefits of LSA (instructors) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 116

Table 5 Classroom assessment for describing achievement --------------------------------------- 118

Table 6 Classroom assessment for improving learners' achievement --------------------------- 119

Table 7 Appropriateness of learners' involvement in assessment process ---------------------- 120

Table 8 Instructors’ understanding of the concept of LSA --------------------------------------- 121

Table 9 Validity of LSA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 122

Table 10 Cognitive benefits of LSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ 124

Table 11 Non-cognitive benefits of LSA ------------------------------------------------------------ 125

Table 12 Relevance of learners' SA ------------------------------------------------------------------- 126

Table 13 categories of classroom assessment purposes (students’ pre-intervention) ---------- 131

Table 14 Category of purpose of classroom assessment (students’ post-intervention

interview) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 140

Table 15 Benefits of LSA (learners' post) ----------------------------------------------------------- 145

Table 16 Classroom assessment for describing learners' achievement -------------------------- 151

Table 17 Classroom assessment for improving learning ------------------------------------------ 152

Table 18 Appropriateness of learners' involvement in assessment process -------------------- 154

Table 19 Description of LSA ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 156

Table 20 Validity of LSA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 157

xvi

Table 21 Cognitive benefits of LSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ 159

Table 22 Non-cognitive Benefits of LSA ------------------------------------------------------------ 161

Table 23 Relevance of LSA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 163

Table 24 Statistical summary of the first round oral performance score (Vpre1) -------------- 164

Table 25 Descriptive statistics of the oral performance scores (pre- and post

intervention) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 166

Table 26 Descriptive statistics of the oral performance assessment scores of the non-

experiment group --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 169

Figure: Conceptual model of how LSA contributes to improving learning

(Adapted from Ross 2006)....................................................................................37

xvii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACTFL: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.

AfL : Assessment for Learning

ALCM: Applied Linguistics and Communication

AoL: Assessment of Learning

Bed: Bachelor in Education

CEF: Common European Framework of Reference

CoPre1: First round pre-intervention data on learners’ conception

CoPre2: Second round pre-intervention data on learners’ conception

EGSECE: Ethiopian General Secondary Education Certificate Examination

EHEECE: Ethiopian Higher Education Entrance Certificate Examination

ELIC: English Language Improvement Centre

FDRE: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

HDP: Higher Diploma Program

LSA: Learners Self-assessment

MA: Masters of Art

MoE: Ministry of Education

TDP: Teacher Development Program

TESO: Teacher Education System Overhaul

TSE: Test of Spoken English

TTC: Teacher Training College

Vpre1: First round pre-intervention data on validity of self-assessment

Vpre2 Second round pre-intervention data on validity of self-assessment

1

Chapter One

Background of the Study

1.0 Introduction

It is self evident that the 21st

century society has been experiencing fundamental changes

in all aspects. New knowledge and new technologies are emerging continuously and

information is made available from multiple sources through multiple media

concurrently. This has accelerated changes in all aspects of human life styles, which in

turn, has posed high demand for new skills and competencies (Knapper and Cropley,

2000; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008). Therefore, the important message

teachers and teacher educators are confronting is the need to build learning society that

cope with the ever changing and fiercely competitive world, and raise educational

standards and qualities and quantity of learners’ learning.

In the light of these needs, the ultimate goal of education has become empowering

learners to take responsibility for their own learning and grow independent and lifelong

learners so that they fit into the 21st century life. This in turn, called for re-engineering

education.

One prominent feature in the recent reforms in education is re-establishing the

relationship among and alignment of the teaching/learning and assessment. Assessment

has been re-defined and the assessment culture has been changed from being a means of

auditing learning outcomes as a way of controlling the students and the schools

accountability to the means of helping learners to improve their learning. In generic

terms, it has moved away from controlling to supporting. Learners are put in the

2

mainstream of the assessment scheme. This is because the more learners know about and

participate in decisions about the goals of their own learning and assessment process, the

more likely they are to make and direct their own learning efforts effectively. Therefore,

involving students in the assessment scheme through learners’ self-assessment, the crux

of this study, is at the heart of the means of achieving this goal of education (Dearing,

cited in Taras, 2002; Havnes and McDowell, 2008; Marzano et al., 1993; Sebba et al.,

2008; Segers, Dochy and Cascallar, 2003; Tan, 2007).

1.1 Organisation of the Thesis

This thesis reports a study that explored conceptions and validity of learner’s self-

assessment in university EFL classrooms in relation to oral performance. It is organised

into five chapters. The first chapter provides general background to the study. It describes

context of the educational setting in which the study was planned focusing on the role of

English language in Ethiopian education, effectiveness of its teaching, and use of

learners’ self-assessment in tertiary levels. It also states the problem and gives the

rationale, objectives, and significance of the study. It finishes by summarising the

chapter.

The second chapter presents the review of relevant literature. First, it gives theoretical

and conceptual framework that embrace learners’ self-assessment. It also summarises

writings on the significance, issues, and concerns related to learners’ self-assessment. It

also discusses issues related to conception and validity of learners’ self-assessment, oral

performances, and training learners on assessing oral performances.

The third chapter deals with the methodological framework of the study. It explains the

approach to the study, identifies the site and subjects, and describes the design of the

3

study and the strategies to be employed to gather data. It also explains the instruments

and their development and validation, and the procedure of the data collection and

analysis. In addition, it briefly describes the pilot study and lessons learnt from the

piloting.

The fourth chapter is devoted to presentation and analysis of the data. It also covers the

discussion of the findings from the data analysis in line with the research questions. The

last chapter gives summary of the whole thesis and concludes the findings of the study. It

also indicates the implications of the result for classroom teachings and teacher

development. Lastly, it points out some limitations of the study and suggests areas for

further research.

1.2 Educational Context of the Study

In EFL/ESL context where Ethiopia is the case in point, the role of English language in

quality of education is immense. The role of English language in Ethiopian socio-

economic activities has grown over several years. It was introduced into the education

system in 1908 as a school subject. After the 1928-35 Ethio-Italian war, it replaced

French as major medium of international relation and eventually took over the role of

medium of instruction in 1941 (McNab, 1989, Alem 1974).

Today, because of the rapid technological advancement and growing internationalisation

that increased the country’s contact with the globe, English is being widely used in

business activities, media and other communicative needs. Particularly, English plays

decisive role in the educational system; its contribution to the learners’ success in

secondary and tertiary education where English is the medium of instruction is immense.

4

Students are required to read and listen and comprehend academic materials and lectures.

They are also required to participate in classroom activities, take notes, produce term

papers and essays, make presentations, and defend their papers. To cope with all these

circumstances, learners need to have good command of English that enable them to carry

out the academic learning tasks effectively and efficiently in all the language skills.

However, learners’ low performance in English is prevalent in all levels and is serious in

tertiary levels. Having summarised the situation of the decline of English language in

Ethiopia a quarter of century back, Taye (2008: 182) contends that after three decades

“the situation nowadays does not seem to be any better, if not worse, than what it was

during those days”. The Ethiopian first, second and third National Learning Assessment

(NLA) (MoE, 2008) also confirms this observation. The report shows that grade eight

students’ performance in English in regional examination declined for three consecutive

years.

In addition, it seems that there is wrong perception about learners’ oral performance in

higher education. These days, students who come to universities from very few privileged

families who afford sending their children to the costly private schools in cities like

Addis Ababa, Adama and Jimma seem to be better in informal oral communication than

their fellow classmates from rural areas. Therefore, they have the perception that they are

good at English oral skills. Not few people also feel that university students have better

competence in oral English nowadays than the past. Here, it should also be noted that

according to the FDRE Central Statistics Agency (2008) report, the urban dwellers

constitute only about 17% of Ethiopian population, and among these, it is possible to

5

estimate that less than a quarter of the urban families afford the school fees of the best

private schools.

However, these students do not perform any better than other students do in academic

tasks. Though there is no recent study that measured oral proficiency of university

students, it is commonplace to hear instructors complaining that in EFL classrooms, for

those students who have high perception about their oral skills, participating in the simple

academic oral performance is really a struggle. As Cummins and Yee-Fun (2007) warn,

the conversational fluency that require the use of only high frequency words and simple

grammatical constructions concealed significant gaps in the competence in academic task

performances.

The researcher has also experienced this ‘superficial proficiency’ in EFL classes in

Wollega University while conducting Communicative English Skills courses. Although

such students can be said better in informal interactions, they have great difficulty in

using the language in academic learning tasks. For instance, they exhibit vivid difficulties

in producing grammatically correct and logically acceptable string of sentences during

oral and written performances.

Generally, English language plays crucial role in Ethiopian higher education.

Nevertheless, learners’ low performance is prevalent at all levels and seems serious in

tertiary level. In addition, students’ oral performance is being misunderstood by both the

students themselves and the school community. This indicates that teaching/learning of

English at all levels and particularly in higher education needs further attention from

different perspectives.

6

One of the major issues to be addressed is the need to harmonise the assessment practice

with the classroom teaching/learning. From this perspective, there are indicators that the

English language teaching is not aligned with the current reform in the assessment

tradition, i.e., classroom instruction has not been allied with the major shift of emphasis

from Assessment of Learning (AoL) to Assessment for Learning (AfL) in which the

learners’ involvement is the prominent feature.

Ministry of Education recommends the use of learner-centred active learning method and

formative assessment in tertiary levels (MoE, 2003, 2005) to improve learners learning

out come. However, local studies that assessed implementation of formative assessment

in Ethiopian Teacher Training Colleges (TTCs) have shown that learners’ self-assessment

that is the major component of formative assessment was very rarely used in the tertiary

levels. For example, Baye (2006) surveyed the alternative assessment modes used by

EFL classrooms in Dessie CTE and found that learners’ self-assessment is very rarely

used. In addition, Silashi (2007), Zergahun (2007), and Dagne (2009) in their studies of

the implementation of continuous assessment asked students and teacher educators to rate

the assessment techniques they used in their classes. They reported that while some

techniques of assessment are practised, learners’ self-assessment is used very rarely or

not at all. Moreover, a country-wide survey of the implementation of ETP (Education and

Training Policy) reported that learners’ self-assessment is the second least frequently

used (17%) next to oral examinations and defences among the alternative modes of

assessment used in tertiary classrooms (MoE, 2008). This indicates that learners’ self-

assessment, a core element of classroom assessment, is missing in tertiary EFL

classrooms.

7

All the above issues discussed in the wider context apply to Wollega University. It is one

of the recently established government universities and shares almost all of the features

of Ethiopian English language education, including the prevalent students’ low

performance in all skills in general and oral skills in particular. In addition, learners’ self-

assessment has not been used in the university.

Although there is no study on the implementation of learners’ self-assessment in Wollega

University, being the staff of the English program in the university, the researcher has the

experience and information that learners’ self-assessment that is the major component of

formative assessment is not used in the university at large and EFL classrooms in

particular. Hence, the learner-centred active learning method opted for is alien to the

assessment practice it is supposed to affiliate and is less likely to effect the intended

improvement of learners learning.

1.3 Statement of the Problem

Learners’ self-assessment plays a pivotal role in improving students learning by

positively affecting the cognitive emotional and social behaviours. Research has

confirmed that, though not unanimously, it fosters deep approach to learning, increases

quality and quantity of learning gains, promotes critical thinking, improve learning

behaviours, enriches meta-cognitive skills and raises willingness and ability of sharing

responsibility of one’s own learning. These all eventually make inroads to the

development of autonomous lifelong learning skills (Falchikov, 2005; Ross, 2006; Sebba,

et al., 2005; Struyven, et al., 2003; Topping, 2003).

8

The role of self-assessment skill in language learning is also promising. It enables the

learner to use the occasions of the target language use into opportunity for out-of-

classroom language learning (Little, 2005)

However, there are some contentious issues related to learners’ self-assessment. Of these

are concerns about the extent to which it can be valid; what and how the stakeholders

think about the practice; and whether or not training improves the thinking held by the

concerned party. Firstly, it seems that there is contrasting ‘popular’ views about self-

assessment; a person is unlikely to assess him/herself realistically; and the reverse of this

supposition. In addition, in the findings of the studies of validity of self-assessment there

is little consensus on the dependability of learners’ grading of their own works. The

findings vary with context of the studies like the educational cultures, methods used, the

level of the learners, and the subject areas (Falchikov, 2005; Topping, 1998; Boud and

Falchikov, 1989).

Secondly, the studies of conceptions held by the learners, the teachers and administrators

about self-assessment are few for generalization; and the results are not uniform. Thirdly,

although there is an assumption, by common sense, that training and exercise could

improve the validity and reliability and the associated less positive conceptions, the

studies carried out to cross check these concerns have not unanimously supported the

assumption (see Section 2.3.3 below).

On top of that, the studies of learners’ self-assessment are all done out of Ethiopian

cultural and educational context that, as Marshall (2004) noted, differs in many aspects

from the western cultures. Teachers’ and students’ conception of education in general and

9

the way they assume their respective role in teaching/ learning process, and especially,

the very idea of learners’ self-assessment is highly influenced by societal and educational

culture they pass through. These all make clear that there is a gap of research on learners’

self-assessment in general and Ethiopian context in particular.

1.4 Rationale of the Study

One finding of the local studies of the implementation of formative assessment in TTCs

that catches attention is the instructors’ tendency of perceiving assessment as something

secret and only their responsibility. In Baye’s (2006) and Dagne’s (2009) studies, the

students’ responses to questions about the types of the frequently used assessment

techniques and why they were chosen showed that the instructors never communicate to

them the what and the why of the assessment mode they use and they (learners) do not

question any of the process in evaluating their achievements.

The researcher’s experience as an instructor and Higher Diploma Training Program

(HDP) trainee conforms to the above findings. In fact, the idea of this research topic

emerged from the researcher’s experiences as HDP trainee in Wollega University. During

peer observation, the researcher observed that instructors plan to use learners’ self-

assessment in their classrooms, but do not allow learners to assess their own works.

During the post-observation collegial discussions, casual attempt made to elicit why they

did not do that showed that though they discuss the issues of learners’ self-assessment

during the HDP training sessions, they do not consider it appropriate and feel comfortable

with the practice. They also feel that the learners’ ability to assess themselves is

unreliable.

10

This scepticism will not be surprising in Ethiopian educational culture where the teacher

is expected to be the decisive figure, otherwise considered not doing his/her job, and

where the students are expected to submit without questioning (Nuru, 2000; Yalew,

2004; Yonas, 2008). As Pajares, (1992) explains, there appears to be a strong relationship

between previous experience and the development of conception about teaching and

learning: beliefs about teaching are formulated through many years of formal schooling

and this conception highly influences the teachers’ and students’ multiple classroom

activities (Pajares, 1992; Williams and Burden, 1997).

Therefore, to implement the learner-centred and active learning approaches that have

been opted for (MoE, 2003) in its complete sense, it is important that the conceptions

held by the teachers and the students about learners’ self-assessment are made explicit

and visible, and unfavourable behaviours need to be modified so that learners are

involved in the assessment scheme. In addition, for education to be a lifelong enterprise

that continues far after the student completes her/his schooling, it is important that the

learners’ self-assessment should be valued and count to students’ final grade, otherwise it

would not appeal to both students and teachers. Thus, it is clear that the judgements

provided by students about their own learning must be dependable. Therefore, it is crucial

that validity of learners’ self-assessment and ways of improving it be the focus of study.

Generally, to exploit the potential benefits of learners’ self-assessment to improve the

effectiveness of education in general and English education in particular, there should be

at least initial awareness of how it works in Ethiopian context; otherwise, the active

learning and learner-centred approaches fly blind of their meaning and core objectives.

Therefore, studying conceptions and validity of learners’ self-assessment in Ethiopian

11

context seems not a matter of choice but necessity. It is with these backdrops that the

present study of learners’ self-assessment has been attempted.

1.5 Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this study was to contribute an input to the very scarce local

literature that recognizes the critical role student self-assessment plays in improving

learning outcomes, and the part that students assume in assessment process. Specifically,

this study was aimed at exploring conceptions and validity of learners’ self-assessment in

university EFL classrooms from both the students’ and the instructors’ perspectives. It

tried to find out the conceptions held by the instructors and the learners and the extent of

validity of learners’ self-assessment of their English oral performance. It also aimed at

disclosing whether training improves the conception and the validity.

To achieve the above-mentioned general and specific objectives, the following research

questions were formulated and answered.

RQ1. A) What is the EFL instructors’ conception of learners’ self- assessment?

B) What is the University EFL students’ conception of learners’ self-

assessment?

RQ2. To what extent can learners provide a valid assessment of their own

English language oral performances?

RQ3. A) How does training in self-assessment affect the validity of learners’

assessment of their own English oral performances?

B) How does training in self-assessment influence the learners’

conception of learners’ self-assessment?

12

The research questions are set in such a way that they provide information on both the

visible (actual practices) and invisible (conceptions) aspects of the topic in focus from

different perspectives. While RQ1A & B are designed to study the invisible aspects, i.e.,

the conception of the participants, RQ2 is designed to look into the actual practice, i.e.,

the extent of validity of learners’ self-assessment. RQ3 A, & B are formulated to explain

the likelihood of improving the practice by training the learners.

The assumptions underlying this research is that actual practice is highly influenced by

knowledge, beliefs and values one attaches to the practice (Ashcroft, 1996; Pajares, 1992;

Williams and Burden, 1997; Woods, 1996); and that better understanding of the existing

behaviours can help to improve the situation. Related to this is the assumption that the

conceptions and practices can be improved by training and exercises. Although the

debate about whether to change conception first in order to change practices or the vice

versa is still going on in the literature (James and Pedder, 2007), it is unlikely that

learners’ self-assessment as strategies for improving learning and learner behaviour can

simply be added to the repertoire of teachers and students alongside the practices

designed for other purposes such as developing language skills or cognitive thinking; it

needs particular attention.

1.6 Significance of the Study

In essence, as Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) noted, pursuing knowledge for its own

sake is very important because all knowledge is practical. However, this may not be

possible for study of this kind, which is expected to contribute at least a tiny drop to the

improvement of an existing practice. As a classroom research, significance of the

findings of this study is primarily be helping as opposed to merely knowing, though

13

distinction between “wanting to know” and “wanting to help” is blurred one, (Van Lier,

1989).

If the practise of and the conceptions of learners’ self-assessment held by the participants,

and how better it should be conceived and practiced is explored and made explicit, it can

prompt and help people in the profession to modify their conceptions and behaviour.

Thus, this research is primarily hoped to help the students and the instructors to create

and/or improve their awareness about learners’ self-assessment so that they could be

encouraged to use it in their classrooms and enhance their teaching/learning outcomes.

Secondly, the information to be made available about how the instructors and students

view and utilize this assessment mode would also inform the educational administrators

and curriculum designers and increase their awareness about ways of exploiting the

potential benefits of using this assessment technique in EFL classrooms. This is

particularly important in view of the persisting criticism about the low performance of

Ethiopian English language education programs. Lastly, it can attract attention and

prompt other inquiries to get wider and deeper understanding from different perspectives.

1.7 Chapter Summary

To sum up this chapter, there has been a pressing need for development of autonomous

lifelong learners who can cope with the sweeping and rapidly changing 21st century life.

Learners’ self-assessment plays pivotal role in achieving this need, and it is at high stake

in higher education.

English language education has been given attention because it plays significant role in

the quality of education in Ethiopian. However, it does not seem it is doing well;

14

therefore, it needs more attention from different angles. Empirical literature has indicated

that learners’ self-assessment improves learners’ approach to learning in general and

language learning in particular, but there are questions hanging over issues related to its

validity, conception and training. In addition, there are little, if at all, studies of learners’

self-assessment that explore how it works in Ethiopian classrooms. Therefore, this study

is intended to explore some issues related to the use of learners’ self-assessment in

university EFL classrooms; and by doing so, hoped to contribute to the national efforts

being made to improve the quality of Ethiopian English language education. The next

section turns on the review of the related literature.

15

2 Chapter Two

Review of Related Literature

2.0 Introduction

This section reviews the conceptual and empirical literatures that are related to learners’

self-assessment. First, it provides the theoretical ground in which learners’ self-

assessment is rooted. It describes the major development in the field of language

assessment, situates LSA within the Assessment for learning (AfL) tradition and relates it

to Humanism and Cognitive constructivism. Next, it clears the ambiguity in the use of

the term learners’ self-assessment by providing definitions and its typology. It also

describes features that make learners’ self-assessment in higher institution EFL classroom

different from other subject areas. Then, it provides conceptual and empirical literature

that supports the significance of learners’ self-assessment in contributing to the

improvement of learners’ learning outcomes and development of autonomous lifelong

learners. Then, it discusses some of the major issues like its validity, conception and

training that are related to the practical application of learners’ self-assessment. Next, it

discusses performance assessment and constructs of oral performance, and explains how

these constructs can be assessed. It also points out that these discussions informed the

assessment of English oral performance used in this study. Lastly, it concludes the

chapter by summarising the main points.

2.1 Major Developments in Assessment Tradition

There have been shifts in the approaches to and methods in language learning and

language teaching since the early nineteenth century. The approaches and methods in

16

language testing also followed the shifting sands of the teaching methodology both in its

purpose and in method. Five stages of development in language testing are briefly

outlined here. See Richards and Rodgers (2001) for the description of approaches to

language teaching.

During the grammar translation method when language teaching/learning was

characterised by detailed analysis of its grammar followed by translating sentences and

texts into or from the target language (Richards & Rodgers, 2001), language testing also

took the essay translation approach. Language tests usually consist of essay writing,

translating to or from the target language and analysis of the grammar. It did not require

any expertise or special skill in testing and the teacher’s subjective judgement was

considered superior. This is labelled as the pre-scientific era (Heaton 1990).

The development of Behaviourism brought a slight change in language teaching.

Language was seen as a structure of discrete linguistic items, and language learning is

considered as the mastery of sets of these linguistic items by mechanical habits

(behaviours) formation through the process of conditioning subjects (learners) to stimuli

through reward and punishment. From this perspective, assessment is seen as an

inventory of the items learners are supposed to master by using discrete items that are

short, atomized, and de-contextualized and that require the learner to recall fragmented

bits of information (James et al., 2007; Richards and Rodgers, 2001; Williams and

Burden, 1997). This approach to assessment is termed as ‘discrete-point approach’

(Brown, 2003) or ‘psychometric-structural approach’ (Heaton, 1990).

17

This conception and practice of language teaching and assessment was changed with the

emergence of cognitive theory of language learning that see language learning as mental

process in which the learners employ mental strategies to receive, analyse and transform

information. Language competence is seen as a unified set of interacting abilities that

cannot be separated and requiring simultaneous control over different aspects of the

language system as well as the different language skills (Brown, 2003; Williams and

Burden, 1997; James et. al., 2007). From this perspective assessment is seen as the

procedure of collecting data on the learning process using holistic and integrative tests

such as cloze and dictations (Brown, 2003; Falchikov, 2005; Heaton, 1990; Weir, 1990).

Weir terms this approach to assessment practice as psycholinguistic-sociolinguistic

approach and Falchikov terms it as ‘assessment as procedure’ approach.

The 1960s development of communicative approaches to language teaching, which is

based on the view that language is a vehicle for interaction between individuals for

performance of social transactions, brought the communicative language testing

(Bachman, 1990 Weir, 1990). Communicative language testing claims to assess the

effectiveness of the learner in specific real-like communication context by using the

components of communicative language ability: language competence, strategic

competence, and psycho physiological mechanisms (Bachman, 1990; Weir, 1990).

The common features of all the above-mentioned approaches to assessment are that they

primarily have the purpose of measuring learning outcomes; are external to the learners

even when developed and used by teachers; and are perceived as a separate entity of the

educational program and appended to a program of instruction. They are also mainly in

the paper-pencil format (Falchikov, 2005; Lewkowicz and Moon, 1985; Weir, 1990).

18

Another major development of the late 1960s is the emergence of humanism concurrently

with cognitive constructivism (Davis, 1971; Stevick, 1990; Williams and Burden, 1997).

These two developments brought major changes on the conceptions and practices of

assessment tradition, and resulted in the idea of assessment for learning (AfL) of which

learners’ involvement in the assessment process is the main feature (Butterfield, 1995;

Clarke, 2005; Marzano, et al., 1993; Segers, et al., 2003).

Humanism prioritizes the human aspect in language teaching/learning process. The basic

principle of this theory is the notion that the emotional and social aspects of teaching

matter as much as, if not more than, the cognitive aspects. The underlying assumptions

here are first, a person is perceived as largely responsible for his/her own destiny.

Second, education should aim at preparing the learner to cope with the questions “put by

life” (Tolstoy in Davis 1971:76). Third, to achieve this aim, the individual’s inner world

(thoughts, feelings and emotions) are considered to play vital role in human development.

From this perspective, learning is highly affected by the way the individual learner views

him/herself within the context and by the extent to which the learner assumes control

over the learning process. Therefore, humanists emphasise the ‘engagement of the whole

person’-- emotional, social and intellectual aspects -- in the learning process to facilitate

the development of independent lifelong learning skills (Stevick, 1990; Davis, 1971).

While the intellect promotes the development of cognitive thinking, the emotional and

social aspects encourage cooperation and friendship, feeling of pleasure and appreciation,

sense of self-concept and true inner quality, confidence and responsibility. Therefore,

teaching should focus on the development of the learner’s (as an individual and member

19

of the social group) initiative, sense of worthiness, personal identity and responsibility for

his/her own learning (Davis, 1971; Nunan, 1988; Reagan, 1999; Stevick, 1990).

Cognitive constructivism is an extension of Piaget’s cognitive learning theory. Drawing

insight from Jean Piaget, cognitive constructivism asserts that learning is a constructive

process in which the learner is building an internal representation of knowledge and

a personal interpretation of experiences (Bednar et al. cited in Kwon, 2004). The

basic assumption about learning is that it comes about not by adding up discrete

knowledge bit by bit but constructing the holistic map of the interconnections of the facts,

concepts and experiences because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Persons

also do not simply receive this holistic knowledge but construct it by actively engaging in

interaction with their environment (Williams and Burden, 1997).

The common tenets of these two theories are their focus on development of autonomous

lifelong learner and their emphasis on the need for the engagement of the whole person in

the learning process. Autonomous lifelong learning is needed for it is impossible to teach

everything a learner needs within the relatively little class time available. Therefore,

education should aim at preparing learner for not only the here and now but helping

him/her proceed further on his/her own so that s/he can fit into the ever and rapidly

changing fiercely competitive world (Dickinson & Carver, 1980; Nunan, 1988). This can

be achieved when the whole person (cognitive, emotional and social aspect) is involved

and actively interact in the learning process (Stevick, 1990; Williams and Burden 1997).

These tenets of the humanism and the constructivism are realised through the learner-

centred approach to language teaching (Nunan, 1988). In learner-centred approach,

20

learners are encouraged to take fuller and more active participatory role in the whole

process of their language learning. Classroom decision- making is a negotiated and

shared process between the learner and the teacher because this encourages the learners

to assume a sense of responsibility, ownership and control over their own affairs (Breen

and Littlejohn, 2000; Tudor, 1996; Nunan, 1988; Wenden, 1991).

These complementary developments resulted in rethinking about the congruence in the

conceptions and practices between learning, instruction and assessment. The ‘traditional’

assessment was inconsistent with the idea of holistic learning and learner empowerment

as ultimate goal of language education. As a result, the purpose and modes of assessing

learners’ learning has changed. Assessment has become an integral part of the instruction

to provide opportunity for the learners’ full participation in the process and holistic

information about their learning. Thus, it concords with the basic tenets of humanism and

constructivism (Brown with Bull and Pendlebury, 1997; Gardner, 1999; Havenes and

McDowell, 2008; Nunan, 1988; Marzano et al., 1993; Sebba et al., 2008; Segers et al.,

2003; Zariski, 1996).

This development is termed as Assessment for Learning (AfL) or Formative assessment.

Formative assessment differs from its predecessors in that first, its primary purpose and

objective is not describing achievement for certification but improving learning.

Therefore, it is considered not just an integral part but the major component of the

classroom instruction. Second, it comes not only in the paper-pencil format but include

variety modes like portfolio, journal writing, project works, and task performances. The

third and prominent feature is the involvement of the learners in the whole process of

21

assessing their own learning outcomes through peer- and self-assessment. The major

shifts in the current assessment tradition can roughly be summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Major shifts in the assessment tradition

(Based on Brown with Bull & Pendlebury, 1997; Havnes & McDowell, 2008)

A points needs to be mentioned here. As can be observed from the table above, it does

not mean that the AoL and the AfL are exclusive of each other. Rather, the shifts can be

seen on a continuum with items in the lists on both side of the table are on the two

extremes of the continuum. For instance, an assessment can serve multiple purposes like

improving and at the same time for grading, with different emphasis on the right or the

left end. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that for assessment to serve its purpose, the

focus of attention has been shifted towards the right column of the table.

from assessment of learning (AoL) towards

towards

Assessment for learning (AfL)

Separated

integrated

periodical continuous

for judgement, selection, certification etc. for improving learning

de-contextualized/atomistic contextualized

product assessment process & product assessment

paper-pencil format variety of techniques

teacher-controlled learner-involved/negotiated

stored responsibility shared responsibility

opaque transparent

competitive collaborative

22

One of the marked shifts in the assessment purposes and methods particularly in language

teaching is the shift of locus of control i.e., the shift from the teacher-controlled

assessment to learner-involved/negotiated through self- and peer-assessment (Brown et

al., 1997; Falchikov & Goldfinch, 2000; Falchikov, 2005; Havnes & McDowell, 2008).

These modes of assessment have got the most significant place in the thinking in the

direction of learner autonomy. The next subsequent subsections describe learners’ self-

assessment and conceptualises how it contributes to the improvement of learners’

learning outcomes.

2.2 Learners’ Self-Assessment

Self-assessment is not alien concept to human behaviour. Human constantly engage,

consciously or subconsciously, in an on-going process of evaluating the self and the

others. In non-technical language, every day one part of the self assesses the actions and

successes of another part of the self and the others. In most of religious rites, it is part of

meditation that involves examination of conscience and private confession. In

psychology, the ego assesses and controls the id and the super ego, and in pedagogy

learners always question their own performance and achievement (how well have I

done?) with the need to know and fill the gap between the actual and expected standard.

At the work place persons usually engage in evaluating colleagues, workmates and others

with the intention of comparing oneself with others.

It is in the mid 20th

century that this common sense emerged as part of the meta-

cognitive process (thinking about one’s own thinking and learning about ones’ own

learning), and its significance as part of human thinking and learning process gained

popular acceptance in cognitive psychology. Since then, it has been provided with

23

theoretical explanations and research findings in human learning (Brown with Bull and

Pendlebury, 1997; Coombe, 2002; Lewkowicz and Moon, 1985).

2.2.1 Description and Typology of Learners’ Self-assessment

The concept of learners’ self-assessment (hereinafter LSA) is open to be defined loosely.

It goes with variety of terms like, self-evaluation, self-testing, self-grading and self-

marking which refer to different practices that can be labelled self-assessment, but do not

actually conform to the very idea of self-assessment. As Boud & Brew (1995:2) argue,

though these terms are similar in certain ways to LSA they “are sufficiently different to

warrant separate consideration and the use of alternative descriptors”.

The terms self-testing, self-grading and self-marking refer to the practices in which the

learners check their performance, for example, on objective type test items where the

correct answers for the items are provided by the teacher after the exam session or at the

back of the book/ material as is common in text books and distance learning materials. In

such cases the items and the answers are designed and provided by the teacher or material

writer and the testees have no way of engaging in setting or questioning the criteria of the

evaluation (Boud and Brew, 1995; Brown & Knight, 1994).

Although the terms ‘self-assessment’ and ‘self-evaluation’ are sometimes used

interchangeably (for example Black, 1999; Sebba et al., 2008; Ross, 2006), they are still

different in the basic concept they stand for. As Oscarson in (Geeslin, 2003) argued,

while self-assessment refers to the process of setting criteria and assigning value (mark or

grade) to describe achievement in performance, product or process, self-evaluation is

judging and interpreting the meaning and quality of that achievement by reflecting on the

24

result of the assessment. To illustrate, a self-assessor marks his/her writing performance

seven out of ten, then this mark can be judged (evaluated) as ‘good’ or ‘poor’ depending

on contexts. Thus, self-evaluation does not include the two components of self-

assessment.

Some definitions of LSA in the literature also fail to differentiate it from the other terms

that flock with it. For instance, Topping (2003, p. 58) defines LSA as “an arrangement

for learners and/or workers to consider and specify the level, value or quality of their own

products or performances.” This definition is not comprehensive because it does not

mention the role of the learners in the process of the assessment. An illustrative definition

of LSA is given by Boud & Brew (1995) and Boud & Falchikov (1989). They explained

that the two main defining characteristics of any assessment process are making decisions

about the explicit criteria and standards of performance expected and making judgments

about the quality of the performance in relation to these standards. Therefore, they

argued that as the term suggests, LSA should ideally involve students in both of these

aspects. Thus, LSA can be defined as a form of assessment in which students are

involved in, at least, identifying standards and/or criteria for evaluating their work and

making judgements based on the criteria about the quality of their own performance and

the extent to which they have met the standards.

Because of the less precise use of the term LSA and its associates, LSA is usually

misunderstood and/or misused in the literature. Especially in the empirical literature on

LSA, only few studies provide clear or implied meaning of the term as it is used there.

This made difficult to compare findings of different studies with and among each other

(Boud & Falchikov, 1989; Boud & Brew, 1995). In response to this problem, Boud &

25

Brew (1995) developed a typology of LSA. They put in to three levels based on the

knowledge and cognitive level required and the extent to which the learners are allowed

to take part in the assessment process.

Technical interest level is the first and the lowest level of LSA which requires students

to check knowledge, performance or skill level against a model answer or criteria

provided by the teacher. The use of answer keys or teacher-provided criteria or

questionnaire-like competency statements can be examples of assessment involving

students at this level. These tasks do not require high level of cognitive ability and

knowledge of the subject matter itself; it serves only technical knowledge level where the

interest is assessing the understanding of simple and objective facts and ideas

independent of their context using objective statements, and does not require subjective

and contextual interpretation of phenomena. The concepts of the terms mentioned above

that are synonymously but mistakenly used with LSA are categorised under this level.

Communicative interest level: At this second level, involvement is greater and students

are allowed or encouraged to discuss and negotiate criteria or consider what constitutes a

good answer before applying these standards to their own work. This level of LSA

involves elements of communication and interpretation and discussion of relationships

between the elements of the assessment. In this process the students derive practical

knowledge and develop their own meaning. For example, students in a class test situation

that involve subjective answer, first each student outline an answers to each question.

Then, one student describes her/his answer and others add ideas to form a collective view

of what are good answers. Students then score their own answers in relation to the good

answers.

26

Emancipatory level: The third level has an emancipatory component in that at this level

of involvement students not only build on their knowledge but also make meta-level

analysis where they reflect on the process of building the knowledge. They are required

to give critical attention to the criteria, question and comment on the competencies

themselves. At this domain, the discussion goes well beyond the question whether or not

the students met the set criteria and standard and focuses on justification of the standard

and the given level of competency. As an example, students perform tasks, set up their

own competency standards and assess themselves. They then justify these to their teacher

and may change their assessment or the criteria in the light of these discussions.

From the point of view of constructivist and humanist philosophy of education, these

second and third types of LSA are directly related to the improvement of learning

outcomes. In these types, learners first participate directly in deciding on the assessment

criteria; then they do a task-based performance of the target language aspect (in authentic

or simulated situation) and finally, score their own performance based on the criteria

developed for that specific task. After all, the second and third types of LSA fit into the

why of LSA.

Beyond clearing the confusion in the terminology, Boud & Brew’s typology suggests two

points that need consideration. The first and may be more important is the question that

which type of LSA should be used at which level with what kind of learners. A clear-cut

answer to this question obviously should come from research findings. However, it can

be logically argued that the second and the third types of LSA would be difficult for

students in the primary and first cycle secondary education in Ethiopian. This is because

it is self evident that the tasks of assessment in these levels requires relatively developed

27

cognitive ability and more complex schema that could be attained during the late

adolescence Piaget’s cognitive development stage. In similar logic, it is possible to argue

that the second type of LSA can be used with upper secondary (preparatory) and tertiary

level students.

The second and related point is the kind of skill and knowledge to be fostered. This again

depends on the grade level and cognitive maturity. Here again it can be asserted that for

LSA to serve its purpose, i.e., facilitate the development of autonomous lifelong learning

skills, it is necessary to involve learners in at least the second type of LSA which

encourage construction of personal meaning and knowledge in the process of doing the

assessment.

Based on the format by which students self-assess, LSA of language skills can take

global (indirect) or direct (task-based) performance format (Brown, 2003; Tudor, 1996).

Global (indirect) self-assessment is a format in which learner is provided with partial or

extended description of a language skill or descriptions of situation of the language use

and asked to rate him/herself on a five-or ten-point scale questionnaire by indicating the

description that s/he thinks best corresponds to her/his assumed level of competence and

skills. Alternatively, learner can self-assess by completing the questionnaires about what

s/he thinks s/he can do with the language or one of its aspect in certain situation on a

yes/no or a Likert-like scale. This format corresponds to the first type of self-assessment

in Boud & Brew’s typology.

Although this format is easier to construct and administer and can be used to help

learners make rough and indirect estimate of their perceived overall proficiency, it does

28

not specify the detailed constructs of each language skills to be assessed. In addition, it

fails to help learners detect what s/he can or cannot actually perform (Lewkowicz and

Moon, 1985; Tudor, 1996).

Direct (task-based) self-assessment requires the learner (self-assessor) to accomplish

certain communicative task in an authentic or simulated situation in the language skill to

be assessed. Then, s/he evaluates how well the performance was using the set criteria.

The task-based self-assessment format, though not easy to develop and administer,

enables the learner to detect the specific constructs that cannot be elicited by the indirect

test formats. It involves the actual performance of the task and provides the testees with

opportunity to demonstrate their ability to organise the language materials using their

own words and ideas. This enables the self-assessor to see the direct application of the

micro and macro skills (Brown, 2003; Tudor, 1996).

In this study, based on the observations and perceived relevance drawn from the typology

and description of self-assessment, the Communicative interest level of LSA was used in

the Direct (task-based) assessment format. Considering the students’ age and level of

education, using the first type seemed simplistic and too mechanical. In addition, it does

not fit the main goal of higher education for which LSA should be pursued (Taras, 2003;

Tan 2007). Again using the emancipator type of LSA seemed to be complex for the

students. Though it can be argued that the third level is appropriate for undergraduate

students, their lack of any experience in any kind of LSA and their perceived low quality

of educational ground does not seem to allow realistic use of the highest level. Hence, in

this study the second type of LSA was employed. That means the students were involved

in discussing and developing the criteria of assessment and used the criteria to evaluate

29

their own performance. Therefore, subsequent discussions related to LSA are made in

light of this conception.

2.2.2 LSA in University EFL Classrooms

LSA can be employed in a wide range of subject areas and levels. However, there are

reasons to focus on EFL classes in tertiary levels. First, because the language learning

process by itself is complex and the nature of the constructs of what is to be learned and

assessed is elusive (Bachman, 1990; Coombe, 2002; Dickinson & Carver, 1980), the idea

that learners can assess themselves appears to be more doubtful in language classrooms

than the content area classrooms for various reasons. In the first place, unlike assessment

of abilities in other areas of knowledge where language is used in the process of

measuring something else, in foreign language classroom language is both what is to be

learned, and at the same time, the means by which it is learned and assessed.

Consequently, there is high probability of occurrence of a number of unnoticeable errors

of certain sort (Bachman, 1990; Tsui, 1996; Allwright and Bailey, 1991). For example,

while attempting to express her/his thought in the language being learned but not yet

mastered, a learner may get it right in terms of content, but commit very elusive errors in

any of the linguistic aspects. This makes learners’ assessment of themselves more

difficult when compared with the content area classrooms where the focus of the

evaluation is the degree of acceptability of the content information.

Next, foreign language classrooms are characterized by high prevalence of anxiety.

Following the introduction of communicative approaches, foreign language classrooms

put greater emphasis on oral as well as written interaction rather than knowledge

transmission. As Tsui (1996) noted, this has the risk of subjecting the learners’

30

performance to public scrutiny and unfavourable criticism and evaluation. This causes

excess anxiety from fear of making mistakes in front of the teacher and peers in settings

where the culture of self-assessment and constructive peer evaluation is not practised;

Ethiopian EFL classrooms are the case in point.

In addition, the different constructs like proficiency, communicative competence,

linguistic competence and strategic skills are not, at least for the learner, easy to identify

and pin point. For the learners, it is not easy as such to demarcate these skills and see

whether they are separate and comparable for assessment. Besides, different skills require

different focus of attention. For example, oral performances demand more fluency and

online processing than the written ones; and communication needs different focus than

linguistic analysis. These situations i.e., the inevitability of errors and the high possibility

of failure to catch these errors in assessing one’s and/or peer’s foreign language

performances than the other school subjects make foreign language teachers sceptical

about the dependability of LSA.

While the need of incorporating LSA in EFL classrooms, regardless of the perceived

threat, is nicely relevant to EFL classrooms at all levels, there are more reasons to

underscore the need for the learners’ fuller participation in their own assessment in higher

education. The first reason for promoting student self-assessment in higher education is

connected to the fact that it equips students to become lifelong learners who can evaluate

their own performance after they have finished formal study’ (Brown and Glasner, 1999

in Tan, 2007).

31

It is widely recognised that the main goal of higher education is to help students to

develop into reflective practitioners who are able to reflect critically upon their own

professional practice (Falchikov & Boud, 1989). University students are at the verge of

joining the world of work. These graduates could be ready to take responsibility of their

own action and judgement when they get substantial amount of control over assessing

their own learning outcomes in an informed manner (Brown and Knight, 1994; Dearing,

1997 in Taras, 2002). For instance, the fact that many of the graduates of TEFL from

Ethiopian universities could join the EFL teaching staff in secondary schools makes LSA

immediate necessity for the to-be- teachers. Besides developing the skills of assessing

themselves, they have to have the awareness of the need for and the skill of practising

LSA with their learners (Miller and Ng, n.d).

The second reason is related to students’ perception of higher education. In the recent

trend of perceiving education as business in higher learning institutions, students, as

paying customers, have invested in higher education and perceive the reward of their

investment “to materialize in the form of assessment grades” (Taras, 2001:606). When

the grade fails to turn out to their expectation, they become cynical. As Smith (2000)

noted, allowing learners to participate in assessment is the major step to correct this

negative perception and decrease the learners’ cynicism because it enhances learners’

awareness of the standard required of them. This, in turn, minimises their distrust about

grades they earn and leads them to understand and share responsibility of their learning,

and consequently, improves learner-lecturer relationship which is conducive situation to

learner autonomy.

32

Generally, learners’ participation in assessment of their foreign language learning is at

the heart of learner empowerment at all levels and especially in tertiary education.

However, the concerns of complexity of features that are peculiar to language learning

make it more imperative in foreign language than other school subjects. It is with this

understanding that this study was planned to be carried out in university EFL classrooms.

2.2.3 LSA and Learning

As briefly discussed in section 2.1, LSA derives its theoretical justification from

humanism and constructivism that are realised in learner-centred approach to language

teaching. The basic premise of involving learners in assessment through LSA is that the

direct involvement of the learners in the whole process enhances the quality and standard

of learning by affecting learners’ cognitive, emotional and social learning skills thereby

enhancing the academic and non academic learning outcomes.

The role of LSA does not end with the class end. Learners who master the art of self-

assessment can extend their learning successfully beyond the classroom and curriculum

structure, and the presence of a teacher or tutor and examination (Brown, 2003; Brown

with Bull and Pendlebury, 1997; Davis, 1971; Dickinson, 1987; Geeslin, 2003; Little,

2005; Sebba et al., 2008). Underscoring the centrality of LSA in the development of

autonomous lifelong learner, Davis (1971) puts:

The learning process ─ also known as education ─ cannot end at the end of the

professor’s grading pencil. As soon as that happens [,] the professor takes the

responsibility for what is learned, not the student. It is only meaningless

education which needs the professor’s evaluation, for what is meaningful is

continually evaluated by the learner, who further does not need the goad of

grades to motivate him [her] to learn. What [s/] he does need, of course, is the

experience of evaluating his[/her] own learning and his[/her] own behaviour.

33

This experience [s/]he cannot get if the professor takes all the responsibility for

the quality of [her/]his work, leaving [her/]him with only the responsibility to

satisfy the professor’s demands. (p. 76)

Little (2005) particularly stresses the critical role of LSA skill in language learning for

the-beyond-classroom learning. He writes “... a capacity for accurate self-assessment is

an essential part of the toolkit that allows learners to turn occasion of target language use

into opportunity for further explicit language learning.” (p. 322). Generally, in Brown and

colleagues words “[learners’] self-assessment is sine qua non of course design and

delivery” (p. 178).

So, what does self-assessment require from students in terms of cognitive, meta-cognitive

and social-affective demands? Through what processes might these benefit students?

How does the premise work?

In the first place, assessment is a cognitively complex undertaking that requires

understanding of the goals of the task(s), the criteria for success and the ability to make

judgements about the relationship of the product or performance to the goals and the

criteria. Thus, LSA is reflective activity that involves critical thinking, comparing,

contrasting and reasoning. It also involves the assessor in reviewing, summarizing,

clarifying, giving feedback, diagnosing misconceived knowledge, identifying missing

knowledge, and considering deviations from the ideal.

When the criteria for assessment is discussed, negotiated and clarified by all participants

and used in practice, learners are most likely to be clear concerning what constitutes

high-quality work and direct their attention to crucial elements. In addition, the process of

self-assessment guides the participants to monitor their progress. It helps them to identify

34

their strengths and weaknesses, recognize sources of difficulty, identifying ways to

improve and making decision like whether to go on to the next item or the need for

remedial work and how much time and effort to allocate by focusing on specific aspects

of their performance (Dickinson, 1987; Geeslin, 2003; Smith, 2000; Topping, 1998,

2003).

Another, LSA makes available quicker feedback in greater quantity. In the event of

misconception, it might prevent consolidation of confusion and the fossilization of error.

Even where assessed products show no major error, feedback could prompt higher order

or better quality thinking. Furthermore, LSA also encourages increased on-task

behaviour, thinking, comparing, contrasting and communicating (Topping, 1998).

Communicating the assessment result to justify to a peer or the tutor also heightens the

learners' sense of personal accountability and responsibility as well as confidence,

motivation and self-efficacy. All of these features are cognitive, emotional and social

activities that lead the learners to deep approach to learning (Geeslin, 2003; Topping,

1998, 2003).

Students who adopt a deep approach to learning are intrinsically interested in the task.

They aim for understanding the meaning of what is being learnt by relating the different

aspects of the information and ideas together and to their own experience, and looking for

patterns, principles and meaning in the texts. This approach leads to higher-quality

learning outcomes for the student (Bloxham & Boyd, 2007; Tang, 1994).

In addition to the above mentioned core academic and non-academic benefits, engaging

learners in LSA bears additional systemic positive side effects. It improves transparency

35

and develops sense of trust between the teacher/tutor and learner. It can also give students

greater insight into institutional assessment processes. Students might thus develop more

confidence in these processes and greater tolerance of the inevitable difficulties of

discrimination at the margin. Even, if institutional assessment procedures are inadequate,

students could contribute to improvement of the inadequacies. These conditions surely

improve the learner-teacher relationship and minimize students’ disruptive behaviours,

which is a common ‘headache’ in tertiary levels (Dickinson, 1987; Race, Brown &

Smith, 2005; Smith, 2000; Topping, 1998)

LSA can also reduce assessment burden on the teacher. It can save the teacher’s/tutor’s

time. However, it should be noted that there might be no saving of time in the short to

medium term, since establishing the validity and reliability of the practice requires time

for organization, training, and monitoring (Topping, 1998; Race et al., 2005).

In a nut shell, LSA enhances learners’ academic and non-academic learning outcomes by

improving their awareness and ability of setting goals, directing their attention to the

more important aspect, motivating to commit the necessary amount of effort and more

personal resources, directing and monitoring the effort and resources towards the

achievement of the goal, evaluating the achievement of the goal to see the knowledge gap

and set the next goal.

The following figure was adapted from Ross (2006) to conceptualise and illustrate how

LSA plays its role in enhancing learning outcomes. In Ross’s model, the process and

outcome of self-assessment is shown in rectangular fashion using arrows. The arrows

indicate the direction and steps along the process. In this model, self-assessment involves

36

three steps, self-observation, self-judgment and self-reaction that students undergo; and

results in self-efficacy. Next, self-efficacy leads to two different directions, goals setting

and making efforts. Lastly, the goals and the efforts lead to achievement from the

different directions and the cycle of learning is completed.

Though the model can help to conceptualise how self-assessment contributes to the

improvement of learners’ learning, it has two basic shortcomings. Firstly, it missed

learners’ participation in the setting of standard and criteria. As discussed in section

2.2.1, one of the basic features of LSA is the learners’ participation in discussion of

standard and criteria of the performance expected of them; and LSA that is intended to

improve learning must include this element. Secondly, it assumes development of self-

efficacy belief as the only product of the process. However, as it is discussed in this

section, self-efficacy is just one among the many cognitive and non-cognitive benefits

identified by empirical and meta-analysis studies. The figure also does not visually

represent the incremental cycle of learning. Therefore, the figure was modified in the way

it includes all the fundamental features of LSA.

The modified figure conceptualises the incremental recycling of the learning process that

involved LSA and the subsequent causes and effects. The self-assessment procedure

embodies four mental processes that students undergo. First, going through the discussion

of standard and criteria creates for the students a better awareness of their learning goals

that initiates the launching of organised and focused effort to achieve better results in the

next performance. This will be followed by students’ self-observations (scoring of their

own performance), deliberately focusing on specific aspects of their performance related

to their subjective standards of success. Next, students judge (determine) how well they

37

have achieved their general and specific goals (self-evaluation); and lastly, they reflect on

and, interpret the degree of their satisfaction with the result (self-observation). Students

who perceive themselves to have been successful on the current task (i.e., who recognize

it as a mastery experience) are more likely to boost their self-efficacy belief and

confidence. They will also be motivated and tend to believe that they will be successful in

the future.

Figure 1 Conceptual model of how LSA contributes to improving learning

(Adapted from Ross 2006)

Critical thinking

Reasoning

Confidence

Motivation

Self-efficacy

Accountability

Monitoring

.

.

.

Goal 1

Effort 1

Achievement

LSA

Goal 2 Effort 2

Improved

learning

outcome

Self-reflection

Self judgment

Self observation

Cognitive, emotional &

social behaviours

Goal 3 Effort 3

Discussion of

standards & criteria

38

The process also helps the learners to see the gap between their performance and the goal

set, and the strategy to be employed to close the gap, the kind of effort to be made and

monitored. This leads to the development of positive emotional social feelings that in turn

encourages the setting of higher goals and exerting and monitoring the necessary amount

of effort to achieve the newly set higher goal.

The different broken-lined arrows indicate the upward development of the learning cycle.

When students evaluate their performance positive i.e., they perceive that they are

successful and the gap between the performance and the goal seems little, they would be

encouraged to set higher and more difficult goals (goal2) and commit more personal

effort and resources (effort2) which leads to achievement, and the cycle goes on.

But, as Ross (2006) warns, the self-assessment processes can result in negative outcomes

if learners assess themselves negatively often. A stream of negative LSA can lead

students to select personal goals that are unrealistic, adopt learning strategies which are

ineffective, exert low effort and make excuses for low performance.

2.2.4 LSA and Learning Gains

What have been conceptualized in the above diagram has also been demonstrated in the

empirical literature. The empirical and meta analysis studies that are concerned with

examining the effect of LSA on learning, despite the inconsistency in the use of the terms

and variety in the purpose and design of the studies, have generally, though not

unanimously, reported positive effects of the practice on cognitive and non-cognitive

learning outcomes. Few writers have however, expressed their doubt about these

potential benefits of LSA.

39

Falchikov (2005) and Topping (2003) summarised the results of the studies of benefits of

involving learners in assessment scheme in generic terms. The benefits they reported

include improving higher order cognitive skills, fostering deep approaches to learning,

developing reflective skills, sharpening critical abilities, increased autonomy, increased

on-task behaviour, increased commitment to subsequent performance and increased

participation. LSA as a continuous longitudinal process also facilitates activation and

integration of the learners' prior knowledge and reveals developmental pathways in

learning. In the longer term, it impacts self-management of learning - facilitating

continuous adaptation, modification and tuning of learning by the learner, rather than

waiting for others to intervene.

In other studies, the results were reported in specific terms. Ross (2006) reviewed

research evidences on the impact of LSA on students’ performance and reported positive

results of studies in different grade levels and subjects for academic and non-academic

outcomes. The review indicates that students trained in LSA outperformed the control

samples in narrative writing (grade 4-6), mathematics problem solving (grade 5-6), and

Geography (grade 11) with the Effect sizes ranging from small to medium size; i.e.,

ES=.58 (for weaker writers), .40, and .50 respectively. In this article, positive effects on

non-academic outcomes such as increase in positive interactions and a decline in off-task

behaviours, higher student self-direction, and reduced disruptive behaviours have also

been reported.

Sebba et al. (2008) have also reviewed studies of the impact of LSA on students’

academic achievement and non-cognitive outcomes in secondary schools. They reported

that their review showed three types of improvements. These are increased Pupil

40

attainment across a range of subject areas (9 out of 15 studies showed a positive effect),

improvement in Pupil self-esteem (7 out of 9 studies showed a positive effect) and

improved learning to learn, especially goal setting, clarifying objectives, taking

responsibility for learning and/or increased confidence were reported by 17 out of 20

studies.

McDonald and Boud (2003) in their study of the introduction of LSA across a range of

subjects on a large scale found out that training learners in self-assessment has significant

positive effect on their performance. They trained students from Business Studies,

Humanities, Sciences and Technical Studies in self-assessment and compared their

performance on external examination with those who were not involved in the training.

They reported “On average, students with self-assessment training outperformed their

peers who had been exposed to teaching without such training in all curriculum areas

with effect size ranging from 0.13 to 0.26.” (p. 9)

Results of studies of the benefits of LSA on development of language skills are also

consistent with the above reports. For example, Atai & Meratzadeh (n.d.) compared the

effect of self, peer and teacher evaluation on Iranian female EFL students’ writing

composition. They found out that self-evaluation has had a significant effect (F-Observed

= 32.92 > F-Critical = 2.42) on the improvement of the writing components: content,

organization, vocabulary, grammar and mechanics. Ross, Rolheiser and Hogaboam

(1998) have also studied the effect of self-evaluation training on students’ narrative

writing skills and reported that the treatment group outperformed the control group on

narrative writing, but the overall effect was small (ES = .18).

41

However, it does not mean that the studies unanimously supported LSA; negative effects

of have also been reported in few studies. Ross (2006) has reported two studies in which

LSA resulted in negative outcomes. In both studies the experimental group that used LSA

underperformed when compared to a control group. However, Ross indicates that the

credibility of the results was questionable because of the quality of the design of the

studies. In one of the studies the subjects in the control and experimental classes are not

of comparable ability group and in the other the number of the treatment differ for the

control and experimental group.

Generally, the empirical and review studies reported above, affirm that use of LSA has

considerable beneficial contribution to improvement cognitive, emotional and social

learning behaviours. As Boud & Falchikov (1989) and Smith (2000) concluded, even

studies that report poor or negative evidences on the validity and reliability of using LSA

as measurement tools witness that its pedagogical advantages outweigh the

disadvantages. However, the implementation of LSA is not straightforward. There are a

number of issues to be considered to exploit the potential benefits. The next subsection

turn on the discussion of problems related to the use of LSA.

2.3 Issues Related to LSA

LSA, being a relatively recent development in the area of educational assessment and an

activity related to the mental structure of individual student, needs consideration of a

number of issues including its description discussed in 2.2.1 above. In this section, some

of the rest major issues are discussed.

42

2.3.1 Validity and Reliability

Validity and reliability are at the heart of any assessment in education. They are the

measures of the quality of the assessment instrument (a test, an exam, a task performance

etcetera). They indicate from different dimensions how well an assessment serves the

purpose which it is intended for. While validity is related to the quality and

appropriateness of the assessment instrument itself, reliability is related to the

employment of the instrument (Alderson, Clapham & Wall, 1995; Bachman, 1990;

Brown, 2003; Hughes, 2003). While reliability affects all modes of assessment in similar

way, validity becomes the major problem when it comes to LSA.

2.3.1.1 Reliability of LSA

Reliability is the extent to which the score obtained from an assessment result is

consistent and dependable. An assessment is said to be reliable if it yields the same or

nearly similar result when administered to the same or matched group of testees twice or

more, or when marked by two or more raters (Bachman, 1990; Brown, 2003). From this

point of view, reliability of LSA is measured by the extent of consistency between two or

more self-scoring of the same or similar performance over time. Reliability of LSA can

be improved through practice.

2.3.1.2 Validity of LSA

Validity in language assessment is the extent to which the instrument actually measures

the language abilities and skills it is purported to measure so that the evidences and

inferences derived from the result is adequate, appropriate, meaningful and useful to

make appropriate decisions. The authors in the field of assessment generally identified

five ways or perspectives from which validity can be tested though they used different

43

terms. These are content-related (internal or rational) validity, criterion-related (external

or empirical) validity, construct-related validity, consequential validity and face validity

(for details on validity and reliability see Alderson, et al., 1995; Brown, 2003; Heaton,

1990; Hughes, 2003).

Validity is particularly of paramount importance in LSA. For LSA to serve its main

purpose, i.e., to help learners improve their learning behaviours, it must be valid. First of

all, as Taras (2002) underscores, involving learners in the central aspect of the

learning and a very important means of developing their autonomy and independence

should include their involvement in the “assessment that is graded and contributes to

their academic results” ( P. 504). Secondly, learners should be able to see clearly the gap

between the quality and quantity of performance expected of them and what they actually

performed. If they fail to identify their weakness from strength or tend to be unrealistic or

overlook their weakness because of dishonesty, it is unlikely that they strive to exert the

necessary effort and appropriately monitor it to close the gap. In addition, as Todd

(2002) argued, to encourage increased motivation, greater independence and awareness

and positive learners’ attitude as well as the students’ genuine effort in assessing their

own works the self-assessment should form a proportion of the students’ final grade. This

also necessitates the relative validity of LSA.

Although all aspects of validity are important, criterion-related validity is of more

importance in validating LSA because it is the most susceptible to subjectivity. There are

also a number of related issues. In the first place, it does not seem that the terms validity

and reliability are being used consistently in the studies of LSA. In some studies, e.g.,

Cheng & Warren (2005) and the studies reported in Topping (1998), the term reliability

44

is used whereas the studies intended to validate learners’ scoring against that of the

teacher/tutors which means checking criterion related validity. As Falchikov & Goldfinch

(2000) and Topping, (2003) argue, if we are looking for the extent of agreement

between/among two or more learners’ self-scoring of the same test over time or different

peer ratings it could be said we are examining reliability. If, however, our primary

concern is comparing the scores from LSA with assessments made by professionals,

rather than with that of the same self over time, then we are validating the assessment

result.

In this sense, the criterion-related validity of LSA can be tested in two ways. One is

looking for the extent of agreement of the LSA results with that of an external

standardised examination like placement tests or proficiency test. The other is validating

the LSA results against that of expert markings (most likely the teacher/tutor) of the

subject assessed. In this study, validity of LSA was tested using this latter technique.

The other problem is related to relatively specificity of self-assessment of language

performance. LSA of foreign language skills performance is highly vulnerable, relative

to the other modes of assessment, to subjectivity and bias to influence the scoring of the

assessment. First, scoring task performance in language skills is by its nature a subjective

activity even when clear criteria are used. In addition, because it is human nature,

learners are likely to be biased when scoring their own and/or their classmate’s language

performance. Especially when it is of high stake, learners cannot help being dishonest

and exaggerate their mark (Boud and Falchikov, 1989; Dickinson, 1987; Peirce, Swain

and Hart, 1993; Wen-ming and Xiao-zhen, 2008).

45

Moreover, as mentioned in Section 2.2.2 above, the language skills themselves and the

constructs to be assessed are complex. Therefore, it would not be easier for learners to

demarcate clearly between and among the different constructs; and they may fail to

assess the same constructs using the same standards as their teacher or an expert assessor,

as observed in Cheng and Warren (2005), Falchikov, and Boud (1989) studies, for

instance.

It is because of these observed problems that most of the empirical and meta-analysis

studies on LSA have concentrated primarily on studying the extent to which learners can

assess themselves in realistic manner, and the determinants that are likely to affect the

practice. However, the studies are diversified in their designs: the metrics used to report

their findings, the forms of assessment tasks used and the criteria against which to check

the validity; and reported inconsistent and inconclusive results. For example, while some

reported their findings in percentage, others used correlations and still others used the

measures of central tendencies like mean and standard deviations. In their finding, while

some studies report considerable agreement between teacher/faculty marking and learner

marking, others report students overrating or underrating themselves when compared to

the other criteria. The studies also vary in the type of self-assessment existed there. Some

used the first type (Boud & Brew, 1995) or the global format (Brown, 2003; Tudor, 1996)

of LSA whereas others used the second type or the task-based format of LSA (Boud and

Falchikov, 1989; Chen, 2008; Falchikov, 2005; Topping, 1998; Falchikov and Boud,

1989; Falchikov and Goldfinch, 2000; Ross, 2006, Topping, 2003).

Boud and Falchikov (1989) conducted meta-analysis of 48 earlier studies in wide variety

of subject areas that compared LSA marks with the teacher’s/tutor’s marks. They found

46

out that 17 studies reported overrating and 12 underrating. Another review of similar

studies by the same authors, Falchikov and Boud (1989) that included 57 studies also

showed that on average students graded themselves higher than did 68% of tutors

marking their works. Ross’s (2006) review of research evidences on LSA has also shown

that studies of self-teacher agreement yielded mixed results and, in most cases, students’

self-markings are higher than teacher marking is.

The inconsistency of findings of the studies of the extent of student-teacher/tutor

agreement in the wider subject areas has also been observed in the studies that

particularly focused on foreign language skills; while some report positive results, others

express their doubt. For example, Chen, (2005) in a study that compared self, peer and

teacher evaluation of oral performance in a university EFL classroom observed a

significant match between teacher, self and peer assessment and concluded that “...

significantly students could assess themselves in a manner comparable to the teacher

when they had more practice in assessment...” (p. 8). But, Peirce, Swain and Hart’s

(1993) compared LSA of their own French proficiency to the objective measures of

language proficiency and reported that the LSA correlated only weakly with the objective

measures.

In addition, Ross (1998) in a meta-analysis of 60 correlation studies of validity of

learners’ self-assessment in second language learning also found mixed results for self-

teacher agreement. He found wide range of correlation coefficients ranging from 0.090 to

0.800 among the studies with an average of r = 0.63 across the four skills. The analysis of

differential validity (Ross, 1998) also indicated that the extent of validity of self-

47

assessment varies among the language skills; correlations being the strongest in reading

skill and weakest in speaking skill.

Generally, what the studies of validity in all subjects in general and in EFL classrooms in

particular indicate is that the issues of dependability of LSA has not been resolved yet

which implies further investigation is in order.

2.3.1.3 Determinants of Validity of LSA

The other focus of attention in the issues related to LSA is the elements that may

influence its validity. The determinants of the extent of closeness of correspondence

between LSA and other measures like teacher/tutor markings or other objective or

standardised tests were found to include, course level, subject area, format of the task and

level of language proficiency, task. Like the studies of validity, findings in these aspects

are also not conclusive.

Falchikov and Boud (1989); Falchikov (2005) and Ross (2006) in their meta-analysis

studies reported that course level and subject area are found to influence validity of LSA.

Studies within the broad area of science were associated with closer correspondence

between students’ LSA and teacher/expert assessment than those from other disciplines

like social sciences and languages; and students in advanced course levels appeared to be

more "accurate" in assessing themselves than students in introductory courses.

Some studies have also indicated that the format of the assessment is another factor that

influences validity of LSA. For example, Butler and Lee (2006) compared the validity of

off-task (global) and on-task (task-based) LSA of their English oral performance. The

result indicated that the students could self-assess their oral performance more accurately

48

in an on-task format than they do in an off-task format. In Peirce, Swain and Hart’s

(1993) study also, it was reported that self-assessment measures on specific task

performance are more correlated with tested proficiency scores than global self-

assessment measures.

Although studies of LSA were not found, researches on peer assessment in the area of

foreign language skills have indicated that level of learners’ proficiency in the language

is related with the extent of agreement between students’ marks and other criteria though

the direction of the relationship is not uniform. In Miller and Ng’s (n.d.) study of how

realistically students can assess each other’s speaking skills proficiency, it is reported that

students of high proficiency level could assess their peers’ oral skills realistically than

their low proficient counter parts. However, Mika (2006) compared three proficiency

group (Lower intermediate, Upper intermediate and Advanced) of students’ peer

assessment of their oral presentation in EFL classroom to that of the instructors’

assessment. The results indicated that the rating of the Advanced proficiency level

students was the least closely correlated with the instructor’s ratings, the Upper

intermediate students’ correlated most closely and the Lower intermediate the next.

Further, both the Lower Intermediate and the Advanced gave higher scores than the

instructor. As there is close relationship between LSA and learners peer assessment it is

very likely that language proficiency can affect validity of LSA.

Generally, validity of LSA is likely to be influenced by a number of variables like task

format, course level, and language proficiency. However, as the studies are few and the

results are not consistent, it is difficult to predict the kind of relationship between the

variables and validity of LSA.

49

2.3.2 Conception of LSA

Another major area of concern related to LSA is the conceptions of LSA held by the

stakeholders (teachers, learners, educational administrators and parents). A few studies

available on this area show that there exist different conceptions among students and

teachers. However, one of the problems in this area is the inconsistency of the concept

with which the term conception itself is used in different literature. Therefore, it is

necessary to make clear the intended meaning used in this research.

2.3.2.1 The Concept of Conception

It is difficult to precisely demarcate the distinction between/among the plethora of terms

like belief, knowledge, attitudes, assumptions, values judgments, axioms, opinions,

perceptions, conceptions, conceptual systems, preconceptions, dispositions, implicit

theories, and personal theories that are used to refer to psychological constructs that

define and describe the structure and content of mental states that drive a person’s actions

(Pajares, 1992; Woods, 1996). The interest, however, here is the term conception and its

affiliates like knowledge, perception and belief. In some literature (e.g., Abiy, 2005)

these terms are used interchangeably and in some others (e.g., Struyven, et al., 2005;

Kreber, 2003; Awol, 1999) the researchers bypass defining the terms. However, although

these terms have some commonality, they have differences in some aspects; therefore,

they should be used accordingly.

Perception refers to a person’s understanding of her/his surrounding world by organising

brief experiences, sensory information and feelings. Knowledge is a set of relatively

universal facts and information a person possesses about his/her world. Belief is a valued

Knowledge that refers to relatively more developed idea or opinion acquired through

50

evaluation and judgement of the knowledge, perception and reflection or experience

which felt to be true, deeply personal and is more stable than knowledge and perception

(Bunts-Anderson, 2004; Heal, 2003; Pajares, 1992).

Conception, as invoked by Thompson (1992), represents general mental representations

of phenomena encompassing knowledge, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, meanings,

preferences, and other mental images that explain complex and difficult categories of

experience. It represents comprehensive, organized, and unified body of knowledge

(Brown, 2004; Freeman & Richards, 1993). As the context of teaching learning and

assessment is characterised by such complex phenomena and the attempt of this study is

to gain insight of it, this meaning of the term conception is maintained in this study and

used accordingly.

2.3.2.2 Conception and Practice

There is consensus on the recognition that the conceptions individuals hold about

phenomena are the best indicators of the decisions they make in the course of everyday

life (Williams and Burden, 1997; Woods, 1996). Accordingly, conceptions teachers and

students hold of teaching, learning and assessment have strong effect on their classroom

pedagogical acts than their knowledge and recommendations of the pedagogical experts.

Conceptions act as filters through which educators view and interpret their own teaching

environment (Brown, 2004; Marton, 1981). For example, a teacher can have a good

knowledge of learner-centred pedagogy, but insist on knowledge-transmission because of

his conception of learners as unable to discover by themselves.

51

Similarly, studies have revealed that the teachers’ and the students’ classroom decision

and actions regarding the assessment practice is closely linked to their conception of

assessment (Brown, 2004; Struyven, et al., 2003). It is critical that, as Brown (2004) and

Vandeyar and Killen (2007) stressed, such conceptions are made explicit and visible,

challenged and changed or modified if it is considered necessary that the practices be

improved.

Conceptions develop through experiences. They are rooted in and highly influenced by

the person’s societal and educational cultural ground (Pajares, 1992; Williams and

Burden, 1997; Woods, 1996). For example, in Western cultures independence and

individuality is favoured, and children who are outgoing, expressive, eager to question

and explore are encouraged. Students from such cultures have positive conceptions about

themselves.

In contrast, in most of Southern European, Latin American, and African cultures,

harmonious interdependence is emphasised; and reticence and submissiveness is

considered the characteristics of a well-behaving child by parents and teachers. Students

from such cultures are less expressive and have less positive conception about themselves

(Marshall, 2004). In such cultures the expectation is that the teacher is the only person

responsible for teaching, learning and assessment of students.

Ethiopia is one of the countries with such cultures (Derebssa, 2007; Yalew, 2004). In

Ethiopia, “obedience and politeness are overriding goals in bringing up children”.

Moreover, in the educational culture ‘silence, unless demanded’ is an established

classroom norm, and trying to participate in the decision about their learning is

52

considered impolite and being rude to the teacher (Derebssa, 2007: 131). As Harris,

(1997) observes, the very idea of LSA goes against such educational culture. However,

Marshall (2004) notes that it does not mean that all persons or families from certain

ethnic or racial group necessarily share common conceptions; there are differences within

a culture and even within a family. This is true for Ethiopian context where students,

especially in higher education, come from a wider society in which a number of ethnic

and cultural groups live together and socially interact. This indicates that it is not

possible to rightly predict the kind of the learners’ and the teachers’ conception of LSA in

Ethiopian context.

2.3.2.3 Conceptions of LSA

Conceptions of LSA emanate from the general conception of assessment that, in turn,

emerges out of understandings, socially and culturally shared working traditions,

experiences and educational practices one underwent. In the conceptual and empirical

literature, it is possible to discern that the teachers’, learners’ and school administrators’

conception of LSA is closely linked to their thinking about purpose of classroom

assessment and who is responsible to do it; their understanding and interpretation of the

concept of LSA itself and its significance in the teaching learning process; and their view

of its validity.

In his study of teachers’ conception of assessment, Brown (2004) summarised three

purposes for which assessment may be carried out: improvement of teaching and

learning, school accountability and student accountability. These can be put as

assessment for improving learning and for auditing learners’ achievement. The view of

assessment as a means of auditing may come from the dominant traditional thinking of

53

assessment as a means of summative purpose. The assessment as a means of improving

learning may come from awareness of the redefined purpose of assessment (see Havnes

& McDowell, 2008; Boud & Falchikov, 2007).

Regarding where the authority and responsibility of assessment resides, it is possible to

hypothesise that assessment is exclusively the job and responsibility of the teacher or a

joint venture of the teacher and the students or should come from external body. The

conception of assessment as the teachers’ role emanates from educational cultures where

the teacher is an authority. In school systems where the teacher is seen as the authority in

decision-making, judgements about learning outcomes should be made by the teacher

only. Shifting this locus of control is seen as ‘breaching the law’. The major premise of

the view of assessment as a collaborative activity of the teacher and the students can be

the thinking from perspective of constructivism and humanism, and learner-centeredness.

From this point of view, assessment is an integral part of the teaching learning process in

which learners are the active partners (Havnes & McDowell, 2008).

As discussed in section 2.2.1 above, the concept of LSA can be interpreted at different

levels and there are different meanings that are attached to it. In addition, it is reasonable

to assume that the significance one attaches to LSA is related to the meaning s/he has in

mind. The source of the different interpretations and meanings, and the understanding

and value given to LSA in the teaching learning process can be one’s experience as

student and professional knowledge and experience as teacher.

54

The premise of the belief related to validity of LSA is one’s belief about whether learners

are able to understand the assessment constructs and, even if they could, whether they

would be able to control their ego and assess themselves realistically.

One more point related to conception of LSA and can be expected is that LSA may be

seen as an irrelevant act. This conception may arise from the thinking of the conventional

assessment tradition. Assessment seen as solely an instrument for judgement, LSA can be

considered as irrelevant and just waste of time because the result of the assessment

provided by learners on their own work cannot be taken for granted (Brown and Knight,

1994; Brown et al., 1997; Falchikov, 2005; Sebba, et al., 2005; Smith, 2000)

There are few studies attempted to see learners’ conception about LSA qualitatively, and

these did not include such a comprehensive patterns of conception as outlined above. In

some studies, the researchers just asked the participant to express how they feel about

assessing self or what is meant by self-assessment. Some studies used questionnaire-like

instrument in which students rate their feeling of being involved in assessment scheme

where as others used interviews. As a result, the findings of studies on this area are not

consistent and conclusive. For example, Chen (2005) asked learners’ feelings about doing

assessment of their public speaking skill and reported that learners perceived it positively.

Conversely, Struyven, et al. (2003) reported Mires, Ben-David, Preece and Smiths’

(2001) study of the feasibility and reliability of LSA in which the learners expressed

negative feelings. The learners found the process stressful, tedious and time consuming.

They felt that the teachers were offloading their responsibility and were also uncertain

about their own marking.

55

A qualitative study of students’ conception of learning and self-assessment by Bourke

(2000) which asked the students to describe self-assessment indicated that learners’

conceptualisation of self-assessment ranges from the less sophisticated: the simplest type

of LSA, to the more sophisticated one: using own set criteria and measuring one’s own

performance. One more qualitative study was Tan’s (2007) study of academics

conception of learner self-assessment. In this study the academics identified three types

of self-assessment based on the purpose for which it serves: teacher-drive, program-

driven and future-driven. These studies besides being inconsistent in their method and

finding, the number of studies reported so far is few that the findings do not suffice for

generalisation.

2.3.3 Training Learners to Self-assess

One more issue related to LSA is concerning learners’ training. The skills of self-

assessment, as a higher cognitive skill do not occur as peripheral consequences of

language classroom instruction that aimed at developing the language skills and

competences. On the other hand, while conceptually, there is common general

assumption that training could improve knowledge and practice; this may or may not

work for LSA. Some authors (e.g., Brown and Knight, 1994; Tudor, 1996) have also

suggest that training is needed to help learners to improve their skills of assessing

themselves and overcome the influence of the traditional culture of assessment.

Nevertheless, this general assumption has not been unanimously supported by empirical

literature. For instance, Ross, Rolheiser and Hogaboam (1998) trained grade 4-6 students

in self-evaluation of their writing skills and reported that the treatment group became

more accurate in their self-evaluation and outperformed the control group in their

56

narrative writing, but with small effect size (ES = .18). Chen’s (2008) study in which

learners were trained in assessing their own English oral performance has also shown that

the training improved the students’ skill of self-assessment. However, Jafarpur and

Yamini (1995) in their study that aimed to determine if training learners in self- and peer

assessment improves language learners’ skills of assessing their own and peers’ language

ability concluded that the training had no any significant effect on the learners’ assessing

skills. In addition, in Ross & Starling (2005) study of effect of self-evaluation in grade 11

computer-supported geography classes indicated that while self-evaluation improved the

students achievement, it had negative effect on the students self-efficacy belief.

Generally, whereas there is a general assumption that behaviours can be modified or

changed through training, this is not uniformly exhibited in the studies of training

learners in self-assessment. Moreover, the number of studies cannot be considered

enough for conclusion that suggests the need of further study.

Like the empirical literature on effect of training students in self-assessment, there is

scarcity of both conceptual and empirical literature on teaching students to self-assess.

However, it is reasonable to draw on literature on learner training in general and second

language-learning strategy training in particular to deal with the major and general

concerns in learner training. The main concerns in language learning strategy training are

whether the training should be implicit or explicit, separate or integrated, how long it

should take, which model to follow and which material to use (O’Malley & Chamot,

1987; Oxford, 1990).

57

Regarding the issue of implicit/explicit and separate/integrated, these days there is more

agreement than disagreement among the scholars in the area that explicit training is more

effective than the implicit one in fostering the learners’ ability to use the strategy in

focus. However, there is less agreement on whether strategy instruction should be

integrated into or provided separate from the language courses (Chamot, 2004, 2005).

Chamot (2004), referring to the others’ work, explain the point of disagreement that

while many argue that integrated instruction provides students with opportunities to

practice learning strategies with authentic language learning tasks, others voice their

concerns that strategies learned in integration within a language class are less likely to

transfer to other tasks. Taking position, Chamot (2004) advises that “Given the current

state of knowledge about explicit and integrated learning strategy instruction, teachers

should certainly opt for explicit instruction and should probably integrate the instruction

into their regular course work, rather than providing a separate learning strategies course”

(P. 19). Harris (1997:18) also considers the problems of feasibility of implementing LSA

in terms of time and equipments in the busy schedules of language classrooms and

suggests, “The answer to this is the integration of self-assessment with everyday

classroom activities....”

Concerning the training model to be followed, the variants of CALLA (Cognitive

Academic Language Learning Approach) model that begins by awareness-raising

activities and working through to evaluation is favoured (Chamot 2004; Oxford, 1990).

Particular to LSA training, Ross and his colleagues, drawing on CALLA, developed a

four-staged model. The stages begin with awareness raising introductory activities and

work through i) involving students in defining assessment criteria (e.g., developing

58

rubrics that describe performance expectations in language meaningful to students); ii)

teaching students how to apply the criteria (e.g., model application of the rubric by

assessing examples of performance); iii) giving students feedback on their self-

assessments (e.g., engage students in evidence-based discussions of the differences

between their self-assessments and assessments by peers or the teacher); and (iv) helping

students use assessment data to develop action plans (e.g., find trends in performance and

identify short and long term strategies for overcoming weaknesses).

Ross and colleagues, for example, Ross, Rolheiser and Hogaboam-Gray (1999) and Ross

and Starling (2005) used the model and found it effective. Then, Rolheiser and Ross

(2007) proposed this model for training students in self-assessment.

Regarding duration of learning strategy training in general and LSA in particular, there is

no clear-cut idea. The scholars’ advice is that too short a period may mean unreliable

results and too long a time may result in a high dropout rate among learners; what appeals

to sense is it should be optimum (Chamot, 2005). Still, how long is optimum? Obviously,

answer to this question should come from empirical literature. Nevertheless, it was

necessary to draw on researchers’ experience for the purpose of this study. In Ross,

Rolheiser and Hogaboam-Gray (1999) and Ross and Starling (2005), the trainings lasted

for eight to twelve hours and, as reported here, the studies yielded positive results.

Therefore, the eight to twelve hours duration is taken as optimum.

To sum up, the common perception is that training and practice can help to improve the

students’ skills of self-assessment, but the research findings do not verify the expressed

perception. In addition, the issues related to how the training should be carried out are not

59

direct and clear as such. In fact, the literature does not provide any standardised model of

LSA training. Nevertheless, drawing on literature from language learning strategy

training, LSA training should be given explicitly and integrated into the normal language

learning program. The model and duration of training suggested and used by Ross and

colleagues can be a springboard for organising and conducting training in LSA.

Therefore, in this study explicit and integrated training was used following Rolheiser and

Ross (2007) model.

2.4 Assessment of Oral Performance

2.4.1 Performance Assessment

Performance assessment is one of the major features of alternative assessment tradition. It

was developed as a response to the dissatisfaction with the paper-pencil selective item

test format that does not allow the demonstration of the actual ability of accomplishing

certain task in a particular situation. Performance assessment is a form of assessment that

requires students to perform a task rather than select an answer from a ready-made list. It

involves students demonstrating what they can actually do rather than simply speculating

what they could or would do by completing test items that contains objective type

fragmented ideas. It requires students to apply what they know and can do in real-life

situations and demonstrate in integrative manner. This helps to make systematic

observation for gathering valid data required to make sound decisions (Brown, 2004;

Havnes and McDowell 2008; Pierson and Beck, 1998; Smits, Sluijsmans, and Jochems,

in Havnes and McDowell, 2008).

60

In the context of foreign language teaching where the language is detached from

authentic situations, performance assessment is not easy and efficient in planning,

designing, and administering. Nevertheless, the extra efforts pay off in the form of

validity, backwash effect, and transferability. Because students are assessed as they are

performing real world or simulated tasks that provide opportunity to demonstrate the

target constructs, performance assessments can be a more content and construct valid

indicator of students' knowledge and abilities. Performance assessment can also provide

impetus for improving instruction, and increase students' understanding of what they

need to know and be able to do. In addition, this can be transferred to the actual work

places (Brown, 2004; Sweet, 1993).

2.4.2 Assessing Oral Performance

Although the assessment of language skills, in principle, should be based on students’

performance, performance assessment is especially important in assessing oral skills.

This is because knowledge of the discrete element of the language counts for little unless

the user is able to combine them in a new and appropriate way to meet the demand of the

situation in which s/he wishes to use the language. Therefore, it is difficult to give fair

decision about someone’s oral ability based on paper-pencil test without observing

her/his performance. For example, there is a big difference between answering multiple-

choice questions on describing a place and describing the place orally.

Assessing oral performance is a difficult undertaking because the constructs in oral

proficiency by their nature are complex and multi-componential. Oral performance

entails the use of both linguistic and non-linguistic competences at a time online.

Therefore, assessing it requires careful planning of the aspect of the performance to be

61

assessed, the kind of task to be designed, the type of criteria to be used, and the way the

performance should be scored. The planning should also be based on the type and

purpose of the assessment and/or course/curriculum objectives.

2.4.2.1 Defining Constructs of oral Performance

There can be a number of reasons for assessing language in general and oral performance

in particular. It can be as general as when it is to describe the overall proficiency level for

making decision about placement or promotion; or it can be as specific as when the

intention is to promote the achievement of a particular curricular objective/s as a part of

the instructional process. In all cases, it is necessary to have a framework of reference to

explain what it means by the constructs assessed and how the scores are related to the

constructs (Luoma, 2004).

One way of establishing the relationship between the assessment result and the constructs

is relating the assessment to a model or several models of language competence that

is/are compatible with our purpose of assessing. Alternatively, usually when it comes to

learning-related assessment, the sample of language assessed should be related to the

general goal or specific objectives of the course or curriculum which themselves are most

likely to be based, explicitly or implicitly, on a theoretical view or an eclectic

combination of views about language competence. It is also possible to use the

combination of the two approaches; viewing the assessment constructs from the

perspective of model/s of language ability as well as the teaching goals (Luoma, 2004).

A number of theoretical models of language skills have been developed based on their

respective orientation about language and language learning. Luoma, (2004) presents the

62

summary of the models. Specific to speaking, a summary of oral skills that are useful in

classroom assessment is given by Bygate, (1987). The model provides interrelated multi-

dimensions and sub dimensions of knowledge and skills that are processed and executed

simultaneously, especially, during extensive oral performance. The model has got two

major dimensions: knowledge and skills. The knowledge dimension encompasses the

planning, selection and production sub dimensions that interplay with the skills

dimension that includes message planning, management skill, negotiation of meaning,

production skills and accuracy skills which themselves are realised through further

practical elements.

In the assessment of oral performance, these principal dimensions of the oral skills can be

captured under the notions of complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF), which are

themselves multi-componential that encompass subcomponents. However, in the

literature, there do not seem unanimous agreement on the definition and interpretation of

these constructs. Even among language teachers and researchers, who are supposed to

share common concept of oral language skills, various definitions coexist (Chambers,

1997; Housen & Kuiken, 2009). Therefore, explicit definition is required to make clear

what is meant by the terms in relation to a specific context. In this study the most

comprehensive and consistent concepts of the constructs as perceived from the

perspective of the objectives of the course Spoken English II (EnLa 342) are given and

used.

Accuracy (correctness) is probably the most consistently defined construct. It refers to the

degree of congruence with the established linguistic norm. Deviance from the particular

norm is considered as error. Then, accuracy in oral performance is described as the extent

63

to which the production is error-free of linguistic elements like grammar vocabulary,

pronunciation etc. possibly reflecting higher levels of control in the linguistic skill as well

as a conservative orientation, that is, avoidance of challenging structures that might

provoke error. This seemingly straightforward description however, poses difficulty

when it comes to the decision of what is to be taken as correct and what is not, and why;

which is relatively subjective. For example, some usages that are acceptable in some

social context or community may not be in others (Ellis, 2009; Housen & Kuiken, 2009).

Fluency, in non-technical meaning, refers to the overall oral proficiency, as it is common

to say/hear that ‘Ms/Mrs/Mr. X is fluent in English’ to mean that the person has a native-

like performance. It refers to the extent of ease, smoothness, and eloquence with which

the speaker produces a string of extended discourse spontaneously. In the technical sense,

it is a multi-dimensional construct that include sub-dimensions like speed fluency (speech

rate), breakdown fluency (pause) and repair fluency (gap fillers, false starts, hesitations).

It is the speakers’ capacity to articulate speech without unintentional interruption and

delay and less attention to the form (Chambers, 1997; Housen & Kuiken, 2009; Luoma,

2004).

Complexity may be the most ambiguous and complex aspect of language performance.

As Housen & Kuiken (2009) summarised the use of the term in the SLA literature, it can

be used to refer both to properties of language task (task complexity) and to properties of

language performance (L2 complexity). L2 complexity in turn can be interpreted in at

least two different ways: as cognitive complexity and linguistic complexity. Again,

whereas cognitive complexity is defined from the perspective of the L2 learner/user,

linguistic complexity is defined from the perspective of the L2 features (items,

64

patterns, structures, rules) or subsystems (phonological, morphological, syntactic,

lexical).

In this research, the interest is the definition related to linguistic complexity that is

commonly interpreted as the size, elaborateness, richness, and diversity of the learner’s

L2 linguistic system. It refers to the capacity to use advanced language, i.e., use of

complex and variety of syntactic patterns and lexical elements (Ellis, 2009; Housen &

Kuiken, 2009).

In addition to these three major constructs that are indicators of the ability and skills of

manipulating mainly the linguistic elements, oral performance also requires the

performer’s use of different strategy of executing the performance. This includes

techniques of compensating for language gap, gaining and maintaining audiences’

attention throughout, overcoming psychological and physiological barriers, etc. that are

likely to affect the performance.

Thus, any assessment of extensive oral performance that involves the use of an amalgam

of the array of the linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge and skills necessitates the

inclusion of these four major constructs but with different degree of focus depending on

the purpose and nature of the assessment.

2.4.2.2 Measuring the Constructs of Oral Performance

The way that the construct of oral performance are measured is related to the main

purpose of measuring them. In research where the purpose of measuring the constructs

has to do something with trying to understand and explain issues related to oral skills,

there are different units of measurements to be used to quantify the constructs. For

65

example, fluency, as speech rate can be measured by counting the number of syllables or

words uttered per time unit; or as break down fluency, it can be measured by counting the

number and length of pauses in time unit.

Accuracy is usually measured by counting error-free T-units and dividing by the total

number of T-units. (Error-free T-units are main clauses and subordinate clauses attached

to or embedded in them that contained no grammatical, syntactic, lexical, or spelling

errors).

Complexity is measured in terms of the ratio or frequency of T-units, (clauses, verb

phrases and sentences), amount of embedding subordination and coordination,

range of structural types, and structural sophistication. That is the number of t-units

(lexical or syntactic) in a text divided by total words multiplied by 100 (Chambers, 1997;

Housen & Kuiken, 2009; mehrang, 2010).

However, these kinds of measurements are too technical to be used in learning-related

assessment where the assessment purpose is mainly fostering learning and checking the

achievement of the particular course objectives. Instead, the scholars in the area of

language testing, (e.g., Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Brown, 2003; Heaton, 1990; Hughes,

2003) propose three techniques of scoring language performances primarily developed

for assessing responsive and extensive writing performance, and later adapted for scoring

assessing oral performance. These techniques are error counting, impressionistic and

analytic scoring. Brown adds one more scoring technique, primary trait scoring.

In the error counting method, the marker counts the number of errors in the texts and

deduct from the total marks assigned to the work. However, it ignores the different

66

constructs and sub-skills and fails to take in to account of the kind of error to be or not to

be emphasised. The impression (holistic) method involves awarding a single whole mark

to students’ work based on the total impression of the production (written or oral) as a

whole. Though this method is good for efficiency for marking large number of

composition, it is vulnerable to the markers’ bias. It also ignores the aspects of error to be

focused on and it is difficult for students to get feedback.

In the primary traits scoring method, the scorer assign marks based on the effectiveness

of the text in achieving a narrowly defined purpose or function of language for example,

persuading, describing, or commenting. The scoring can be done on a four or five point

scale. The drawback of this method is it totally ignores other aspects of competences like

fluency, organization accuracy etc (Brown, 2003).

The analytic method involves the use of marking scheme that helps the marker to identify

the language aspects and skills the testee is required to demonstrated. It also guides on the

amount of mark to be given for each element. Therefore, it is relatively reliable than the

others and helps to give feedback to students on their performance. This technique is

usually preferred to the others because of its perceived relative reliability and validity.

The two practical advantages of the analytic scoring are:

First, it allows us to provide a ‘profile’ of the areas of language ability that are

rated. ... A second advantage is that analytic scales tend to reflect what raters

actually do when rating samples of language use.” Bachman & Palmer

(1996:211).

In this research, because of this perceived relative advantage, this latter method was used

to score the learners’ English oral performance.

67

2.4.2.3 Rating Scales for Oral Performance

In classroom assessment where one of the techniques of scoring discussed above is to be

used, it necessitates the use of a certain sort of rating scale. The scale can take a form of

plain numbers representing set of descriptors or verbal expression categories like

‘excellent’, ‘fair’ etc. in ascending series of levels. There are varieties of rating scales for

assessing speaking skills developed by different examination bodies for different

purposes. Some of the scales are holistic and others are analytic, (e.g., ACTFL & TSE)

some are for testing general proficiency and others are for task performance in specific

context (e.g., CEF), etc. (Luoma, 2004).

It may seem attractive to use one of the existing scales that are used by a formal

examination body. However, scales must always be related to the purpose of the test and

the definition of the construct to be assessed. This makes it difficult to find one that fits

exactly to the purpose of a specific classroom assessment. Besides, it is difficult to trust

that many existing scales have been developed through valid and reliable research

procedures. Therefore, Luoma, (2004:82) advises that “even if existing scales were used

as a basis, it would therefore be a good idea to modify them...” in such a way that they

serve the purpose for which they are to be used.

For the purpose of this research, The Associated Examining Board Test in English for

Educational Purpose: Assessment Criteria for the Oral Test (Weir, 1990) was adapted

based on the course objectives and specific assessment purpose. This was chosen because

the constructs and the descriptors of the constructs are more or less similar to the

elements of oral performance to be assessed in Spoken English II (Enla 243), the course

that was being taught and used for this study (see Section 3.4.4.2)

68

2.4.2.4 Tasks for Assessing Oral Performance

In the assessment context, tasks are simulated or real life activities that provide learners

with context and opportunity to exhibit their skills of using the language for certain

purpose in certain situation. To be able to capture the aspect of the language

competence/s in focus, an appropriate task whose performance necessarily trigger the

production and manipulation of the target constructs should be designed.

Designing tasks for assessing oral production skills needs considering a number of issues

in relation to the purpose of the assessment. These include the type of task (what the

assessee is asked to do), the format of the performance (individual, pair or group), and the

purpose of the language (academic or real-life simulation). It also needs considering

whether it is integrated or discrete, and issue of difficulty in terms of content (background

knowledge) and language level, length of time, etc. Readers can refer Luoma, (2004) for

comprehensive description of the types, formats, and purposes of speaking tasks.

There are various types of tasks among which choice can be made and adapted to the

level and purpose of the assessment. These task types range from imitative through

controlled interview to oral presentations. Brown (2003:141-2) gives a comprehensive

list of types of tasks into five inclusive categories.

Imitative (parroting back words, phrase or short sentences)

Intensive (direct response, reading aloud, sentence and dialogue

completion, simple picture cued tasks)

Responsive (greetings; short conversation, requests and comments; and

the like)

69

Interactive (extended transactional or/and interpersonal exchanges)

Extensive (speeches, oral presentations, storytelling, descriptions etc)

The categories are listed in their ascending order in terms of their length and complexity.

While the imitative tasks are used to assess the purely phonetic level of production some

lexical and grammatical elements can be incorporated in the assessment criteria. The

intensive type of speaking involves the production of short chunks to demonstrate

competences in lexical, phrasal, and grammatical relationship. The responsive tasks are

used to test competence in very short conversation guided by prompt stimulus. The

difference between the interactive tasks and the responsive ones is length and complexity.

The interactive tasks include multiple exchanges and/or participants. The extensive or

monologue is the task type where there is limited or no overt oral interaction from

listeners and requires demonstrating relatively higher level of competence.

Then the choice of the kind of task to be used in assessing oral performance depends on

the level of the assessee, the objective of the particular assessment and the construct

intended to be demonstrated. In this study, the last two types of tasks (interactive and

extensive oral performances) were used because the objectives of the course used require

the students to involve in extended oral interactions and presentations.

In this study, LSA of their English oral performance is informed by the forgoing

discussions about performance assessment in general and oral performance assessment.

The selection and defining of the construct, design of the tasks, and the measuring

instrument (marking scheme) are all based on these discussions.

70

2.5 Chapter Summary

To wind up this chapter attempt is made to position LSA in its theoretical and empirical

grounds. Humanism and constructivism are the educational theories that support LSA. It

has been shown that LSA enhances learning by affecting the cognitive, social and

emotional aspects of the learners’ learning. The empirical evidences have also supported

the theoretical propositions about beneficial effects LSA on students’ learning. LSA is

described and categorised in terms of the extent it permits students’’ involvement in the

assessment scheme. The issues of its validity, conception held by learners and others, and

ways of training learners have been reviewed. The literature indicates that issues

surrounding its application need further consideration. It has also been pointed out that

oral performance assessment is more appropriate than the paper-pencil discrete items.

Designing oral performance assessment needs to consider the construct to focus on and

the way it is captured. Finally, the preference of performance-based LSA format to the

global one and analytic marking to the other techniques is indicated. The type and format

of task used is also justified. The next chapter deals with the methodology of the study.

71

3 Chapter Three

Methodology

3.0 Introduction

This chapter deals with the methodology of the study. First, it describes the approach

used in this study. It aliens this study with the mixed-methods approach, provides

justification for the choice of the approach, and explains how the quantitative and the

qualitative methods are mixed. Next, it portrays the design of the study, the instruments

and their development, the data gathering procedures, and data analysis techniques

employed. Lastly it overviews the lessons learned from piloting the instruments and the

methods. It finishes by providing the summary of the chapter

3.1 Approach to the Study

An approach to research is informed by the researchers’ worldview-- assumptions and

belief about knowledge and reality. Drawing on pragmatic research paradigm, the

concurrent mixed-methods design was adapted in this research. This design was opted for

to expand understanding by looking into different aspects of the phenomenon and

corroborating the data through triangulation. This study tried to understand LSA from

three dimensions. It explored conceptions of LSA held by the instructors and the learners.

It also assessed the validity of learners’ assessment of their own English oral performance

and the effect of training on the existing conceptions and practice (cause and effect

relationship).

Accessing conceptions involves capturing subjective meanings, opinions, and feelings

individuals attach to phenomena. Although it was possible to use quantitative approach

72

through questionnaire, the fact that the question items need to be simple and

straightforward limits the depth of the data. Getting to such behaviour required

qualitative methods such as interviews and discussions that enable the researcher to probe

deep into such invisible behaviours (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000; D rnyei, 2007).

The rest two constructs, i.e., the validity of learners’ LSA and effect of training on the

validity and conceptions, required data from the students’ self-marking and the

instructors’ marking; and test-retest procedure of the quantitative method and, obviously,

generated quantitative data that lend themselves to quantitative analysis. In addition,

mixing the methods also had the purpose of corroborating the qualitative data by

quantitative data. Therefore, the compelling reason for adapting mixed methods approach

is the need to address the different components of the research with different nature of the

constructs to be studied and the perceived need of validating the qualitative data through

triangulation.

3.2 Design of the Study

As mentioned above, this study involved both qualitative and quantitative methods. For

the qualitative aspect, interviewing strategy was used and the quantitative aspect followed

the single-group quasi-experimental design. In addition, a survey questionnaire was

employed as a means of method triangulation. These three strategies are described

below.

3.2.1 Interviewing

Interviewing is the common communication strategy that enables participants

(interviewers and interviewees) to discuss their interpretations of the world in which they

73

live, and to express how they regard situations from their own point of view. It is

particularly important means of accessing the perceptions, beliefs, and meanings the

participants attach to phenomena. Therefore, it is suitable and most commonly used

strategy to study the conceptions held by participants about their teaching and learning

practices (Cohen, et al., 2000; D rnyei, 2007; Berg, 2001). However, as it involves small

number of subjects and is susceptible to subjectivity because of its qualitative nature,

there is threat to validity. Nevertheless, this weakness was complemented by

corroborating the interview by questionnaire. In addition, care was taken by including as

many subjects as possible and avoiding personal judgement during data analysis.

In this study group and one-to-one format interview was used as the main research

strategy to collect data on the students’ and the instructors’ conception of LSA. The

group interview format was used with the student subjects and the individual format was

used with the instructors to respect the preference of both groups of subjects: the students

preferred the group interview and the instructors preferred the individual interview

format. Both individual and group forms of interviewing share the same features,

advantages, and disadvantages, but group interview, as it involves small group (usually

6/7-10/12), is more advantageous than the individual interview in that it is often

timesaving and involves little interruption. One more advantage of this interview format

is that it might also be less intimidating for the participants than individual interviews

when the group members are of similar characteristics like educational level and age

group and have acquaintance.

74

3.2.2 Single-group quasi-Experiment

The single-group variant of quasi-experimental design was adapted to study whether or

not training learners in self-assessment affects learners’ skills of assessing their own oral

performance and their conception of LSA. This design was opted for because of its

perceived advantages over the true experimental design. As it employs only one group

(the experiment group), it enables to overcome the practical constraints to do true

experiment in educational setting in general and classroom research in particular where

there are a number of serious limitations on the researcher to manipulate the situations.

First, it enables to bypass the inevitable language program administrators’, teachers’, and

students resistance “to disturb their ongoing programs and allow reorganization of classes

in order to randomize the assignment of subjects to different experimental groups”

(Seliger and Shohamy, 1989:148). Secondly, it enables to eliminate the between-subjects

extraneous variables that would be one of the potential threats to internal validity even in

randomly assigned groups experiment. Thirdly, it avoids the resentment and

demoralisation by one of the groups that could happen when it is perceived that the

treatment of one group brings an advantage or disadvantage. In such cases, the subjects

try hard to change their behaviour to compensate the perceived advantage or

disadvantage (Marczyk, DeMatteo and Festinger, 2005), which is another potential threat

to internal validity in experimental design. Lastly, it also helps to overcome the threat to

validity because of diffusion of information by communication between/among groups or

subjects.

One criticism about the single-group experiment is doubt about its internal validity, i.e.,

how confidently the change in the dependent variable can be attributed to the

75

intervention. However, while the true experiments rely on randomization to establish

control of extraneous variables, the single-group experiments eliminate between-subjects

variables by using only one group. In addition, relevant environmental factors are

controlled by establishing a stable baseline of the dependent variable by taking repeated

measures of the dependent variable (Marczyk, DeMatteo & Festinger 2005). In this

study, though the literature does not provide any information about how many times it

should be repeated, it was planned to take the measures of the dependent variables at least

thrice because it is hoped that this enables to see whether the baseline is stable.

3.2.3 Questionnaire Survey

Questionnaire survey can be used to gather data on biographic and demographic

characteristics, behavioural data like what the respondents do or have done; and

psychological constructs like beliefs, opinions, perceptions, understandings, interests, and

values. Questionnaire can serve as main instrument by itself or come in as a

supplementary one (D rnyei 2007). In this study, questionnaire survey was used collect

data on the subjects’ conception of LSA. It had the function of validating data through

triangulation; it came in to corroborate the qualitative interview because, first, it lends

itself for objective analysis, and second, it involves larger number of respondents. This

helps to maintain the validity and reliability of the research findings.

3.3 Population and Subjects of the Study

This study was carried out in English program of Wollega University. It could have been

done in any of Ethiopian universities EFL classrooms. However, for the reason that has to

76

do with issue of convenience and the intention of expanding research tradition to the

recently established government universities, Wollega University was chosen.

Wollega University is one of the recently established government universities located in

Nekemte, East Wollega zone. The English program of the university is one of the

departments set up in 2006 G.C when the university became functional. During the data

collection of this study, the English program has got 31 staff members of which 12 were

on study leave.

The main reason for the choice of Wollega University, among many Ethiopian

universities, has to do with convenience. The researcher is a staff of the English

department as of June 2007. It was hoped that this would ease administrative procedures

and would help to win the goodwill and cooperation of the English language program

administrators and instructors who would have been generally, as Seliger and Shohamy

(1989) observe, usually very reluctant to allow an intruder into their programme; though,

as Cohen et al. (2000) warn, such cooperation cannot be taken for granted.

The researcher’s connection to the English department was important for the qualitative

aspect of the study that needs the researcher to get as close as possible to the participants

being studied to understand better the subjects’ perceptions (Creswell, 2007). It also gave

the researcher, as Ashcroft (1996) remarks, an insider perspective that helped to

effectively explore the real classroom situation, understand better, and come up with

more valid result. The secondary reason was that as it is a recently established university

and most of the academic staffs were new graduates of MA and BA Degree, carrying out

77

a research activity in the department helps to cultivate research tradition in the university

in general and English program in particular.

The population for this study were EFL students taking the Spoken English II (Enla 342)

and EFL instructors in the English program of Wollega University. These students were

chosen because of the relevance of the course they were taking by then for gathering

appropriate data on learners’ English oral performance. The English program of Wollega

university offers two speaking skills courses: Spoken English I (EnLa 341) and Spoken

English II (EnLa 342), for two consecutive semesters to second year students. The first

course mainly focuses on providing the students with theoretical knowledge about

speaking and spoken language and linguistic elements of English. It describes the nature

and functions of spoken language. It also gives an overview of English sound system and

pronunciation of some irregular forms. Then it involves the students in practicing

everyday spoken English like self-introduction, greeting and parting, giving instruction,

etc. The second course is an extension of the first one. It focuses on developing the

students’ oral communicative skills in formal and academic contexts. It involves the

students in practicing to produce extended speech in different occasions like public

speech, debate, etc. The assessment of students’ achievement also involves a little

proportion of written formats and more of oral task performances continuously in the

forms of individual, pair and group works both in classrooms and out of class

assignments.

The second year classes of students taking Spoken English II (EnLa 342), during the time

of data collection were preferred to the first one. This is because the assessments on the

course required the students to engage in extended academic oral performance rather than

78

the production of short chunks of everyday English that require only the common high

frequent vocabulary and simple grammatical structures. This fits the rationale of this

study and provides appropriate context to generate relevant data on the learners’

relatively extensive English oral performance.

For the quantitative part of the study, all the available number of the students and the

instructors was used because the size was manageable; there were a class of forty-six

students and nineteen instructors in the English program during the time of data

collection.

For the qualitative aspect that involved interview, the student subjects were purposively

sampled. In the purposive sampling, it was attempted to include students from the three

ability groups, from both sex and from different parts of the country because these traits,

i.e., achievement, gender and cultural grounds are likely to affect individuals’ conception

of self-assessment. Following Cohen, et al.’s (2000) and D rnyei’s (2007) suggestions,

nine students (two for safety margin), who volunteered to participate in the interview

were selected. The group included three female and six male students, two each from

Oromia, Amhara and Addis Ababa, and one each from Tigray, Debub and Benishangul

regions; there were no students from the rest regions. The five instructors for the

individual interview were recruited on the availability basis because only six out of the 19

instructors were willing to be interviewed.

3.4 Instruments

As discussed in Chapter one (Section 1.5), the objective of this study was exploring the

conceptions held by students and instructors, assessing the extent of validity of LSA of

79

English oral performance and effect of training on the conceptions and the validity of the

self-assessment in university EFL classrooms. To achieve these objectives, following the

research strategies discussed above, unstructured interviews, English oral performance

assessments tools, and questionnaires were, used to gather three sets of data.

The interviews were used to obtain the set of data pertaining to conceptions and English

oral performance assessments tools were employed to generate data on the validity of

LSA of English oral performance. The questionnaires were used to collect supplementary

data on conceptions. In addition, training materials were also used to train students on

LSA. The correspondence between the behaviours studied and their corresponding

instruments for data collection is summarised in Table 2 below. The subsequent sections

describe development and validation of these instruments.

Table 2 Correspondence between the behaviours studied and the instruments

employed

Note: The double tick (√√) means that the instrument was used as the main one, and the

single tick (√) shows it was supplementary to the major one.

The constructs (behaviours)

Res

earch

Qu

esti

on

s

instruments

interview Questionnaire English Oral

performance

assessment

Instructors’ conception of

LSA

RQ1A √√ √

Learners’ conception of LSA RQ1B √√ √

Extent of validity of LSA

of learners’ SA

RQ2 √√

Effect of intervention RQ3A √√

RQ3B

√√ √

80

3.4.1 The Interview Schedule

In this study, it was opted to use the unstructured interview because it allows the

interviewer to be able to restructure and reformulate the questions in the course of the

interview as required to gather as large amount of information as possible by probing

deeply and flexibly. Therefore, unstructured guiding questions were designed and used

for both groups of respondents.

The guiding questions for this study were drawn from both the conceptual and empirical

literature on assessment in general and LSA in particular (e.g., Brown 2004; Brown &

Knight, 1994; Brown with Bull and Pendlebury, 1997; Lewkowicz & Moon, 1985; Black,

1999). In the procedure of developing the guiding questions, first broader categories of

perceptions, knowledge, beliefs, and opinions that constitute conceptions about

assessment in general and LSA in particular were pooled from the literature. The

categories were built around six themes: the main purpose of classroom assessment, the

responsible body for classroom assessment, the concept of LSA, appropriateness of LSA,

its significance, and its validity.

The initial idea of the themes was taken from Brown’s (2004) COA-III (Conception of

Assessment) questionnaire originally developed to study teachers’ conception of

assessment and later adapted for studies of students’ conception of assessment (Brown &

Hirschfeld, 2008). Reason for depending on this source is that as assessment and LSA,

and teachers and students, respectively share many behaviours in educational setting.

Then based on these initial themes, twelve open-ended questions were set as a first draft.

Next, the questions were given to two experienced teacher educators and PhD candidates

81

(one in TEFL and the other in ALCM) for comment. In addition, discussions were held

with the teacher educators about the comments they gave. The comments indicated that

some questions were redundant and some others need rephrasing of words and phrases

for clarity. Then considering the comments of the educators, the questions were revised

and reduced to seven in the final draft.

Next, as a form of pre piloting, the questions were used with a group of three students

and two instructors to explore how well the questions were clear, relevant and helpful to

generate sufficient data on the themes, and to see how long it takes. Moreover, it was also

intended to derive questions for the questionnaire items. After the interviews, discussions

were held with the students and the instructors to check whether they really understood

the language of the question regardless of the concept. These preliminary trial interviews

and the informal discussions helped to identify the questions that needed more

clarification and details to trigger the appropriate responses. Then, the clarifications were

done and the interview schedule was made ready to be piloted.

3.4.2 The Questionnaire

The questionnaire had the function of validating data through triangulation (D rnyei,

2007); it came in to supplement the unstructured interviews. It was used to collect

quantitative data on the students’ and the instructors’ conception of LSA. Two close-

ended multi-item Likert type 5-point scales questionnaires, for the instructors and the

students, were used. The 5 points scale range from 1: Strongly Agree (SA), 2: Agree (A),

3: Undecided (UD), 4: Disagree (DA) and 5: Strongly Disagree (SDA).

82

In the literature, there is lack of a validated questionnaire that helps to elicit conception

about LSA as comprehensively as done in this one. This necessitated the use of self-

developed questionnaire. Therefore, as with the interview guiding questions, the

questionnaires were developed by the researcher. Two questionnaires, one for the

students and one for the instructors containing 29 and 32 items respectively were

developed.

The questionnaires contain six thematic categories of which the three categories were

subcategorised in to two each. The themes for categorisation were the same with that of

the interview questions, and as done with interview, the items and the thematic categories

were drawn from the conceptual and empirical literature. Here also COA-III (conception

of Assessment) was used as starting point, but fundamentally improved. The themes for

both respondent groups are the same, but the wording of the question items differ so that

they fit to the level of each group of respondents.

The multi-item scale format (thematically clustering of items) is preferred to minimise

the effect of wording of a single item on the respondents’ response. As D rnyei (2007)

indicates, a minor difference in wording of an item can cause considerable difference in

respondents’ response. The use of two or more similar question items helps to minimise

this effect; the assumption is that when the item scores for the similar questions are

summed, “any idiosyncratic interpretation of any item will be averaged” (P.92). It also

helps to test the validity of the instrument by measuring the internal consistence of the

items.

83

To minimise the problem of response set in which respondents tend to respond in a sort

of pattern regardless of the content of the item, or tend to simply repeat previous

response without careful reading (Marczyk, DeMatteo and Festinger, 2005; D rnyei,

2007), the items are mixed up and some items are negatively worded. For analysis, the

item clusters were retained and the negatively worded items were reversed.

In the procedure of developing the questionnaire, first 39 items were pooled from

thorough review of the literature and the pre piloting interview (see Section 3.4.1 above).

Next, the drafted questions were given to two teacher educators; one PhD holder and the

other MA in teacher education, who are experienced in giving research courses to

undergraduate students. They commented and discussions were held with them. Then

considering their comments, the items were reduced to thirty-five and some items were

rephrased to make the language simple. It was also felt necessary that some of the items

should be stated differently for the instructors and the students, and three items should be

removed from the version for students. Consequently, two versions of the questionnaire,

one for the instructors (35 items) and one for the students (32 items) were produced as

final drafts. Then the items were checked again against the guideline for writing

questionnaire items in the literature, for example, D rnyei (2007) and Dawson (2002)

Then, the questionnaires were pre-piloted to test the reliability of the questionnaires, see

whether the language and the direction were clear enough for the respondents and how

long it takes to fill it out. The students’ questionnaire was distributed to fifteen first year

English majoring students to fill it out in a classroom. The students were informed that

they could ask for any clarification if they could not understand the instruction and the

items. While they were filling out, the items on which many students need clarification

84

and the problems were noted. Later, these items were revised and simplified. The

students took about twenty-one to twenty-five minutes to complete the questionnaire.

This implied that the questionnaire is not too long to be boring.

The reliability of the questionnaire was tested by checking internal consistency of the

items for each major and sub cluster of the items using Cronbach Alpha coefficient. The

Cronbach Alpha coefficient was computed using IBM SPSS statistics 20 and found to be

>=0.62 for each cluster which indicates reliable consistency for 3-4 number of item

scales (D rnyei, 2007). The analysis of the internal consistency also indicated three of the

items in both versions tend to affect the internal consistency of the items, i.e., their value

in the column labelled sig 2-tailed is greater than the Alpha coefficient of the scale;

which means they tend to measure different construct from the other items in the cluster.

Therefore, these three items were dropped from both versions, so the students’ version

contains twenty-nine items and that of instructors’ contain thirty-two items. Then the

questionnaires qualified for the piloting.

3.4.3 The Training Materials

The single-group quasi-experiment involved the students scoring of their own oral

performance before and after intervention, and an intervention by training the students to

assess their English oral performance.

Neither the materials used for teaching the Spoken English II (Enla 342) nor any other

course in the department contained a content related to teaching the learners to self-

assess. There was also no any material readily available in the literature to pick up and

use or adapt for training students in self-assessment. Consequently, the materials for

85

training the students on LSA were developed by the researcher. To develop these

materials the researcher drew mainly on the literature on learner training in general, for

example, Oxford (1990, 1994), Chamot (2005), O’Malley & Chamot, (1987); and Ross

(2006) for LSA in particular. The researcher also used his experience of writing materials

for teaching English language skills.

The materials used for training the students to self-assess included two booklets:

students’ material and instructors’ guide. The students’ material was organised in such a

way that it provides input on the content ideas of SA and tasks to engage students in

individual, pair, and group activities. The instructor’s material provides suggestions on

how to help the students through their material (appendices D and E). The basic outline

of the contents were derived from Rolheiser and Ross’s (2007) model (see Section 2.3.3)

and enriched with ideas from the literature. Both the students’ material and the

instructors’ guide were organized in to an introductory part and five sections in the body.

The introductory part gives a general overview of the need for training on LSA and the

general objectives and learning outcomes of the training. In the body, each section states

its specific objectives, and divided in to Activities and Tasks that engage students in

discussions, reading, responding and reflecting on tasks that led to the achievement of the

objectives stated. The sections also provide content information on some topics where it

seems necessary to help the learners and the instructor.

The first section introduces the training and clarifies how to go about it. It also deals with

issues related to purpose of classroom assessment and who should do it. Then raises issue

related to involving learners in assessment, description of LSA, its advantage,

86

disadvantage, etc. The second section focuses on developing students’ knowledge and

skills of linguistic and non-linguistic elements of English oral performance. The third and

fourth sections focus on developing students’ assessment skills, i.e., developing criteria,

scoring performances using the criteria, and giving and using feedback. The last section

provides activities for reflection and action. It guides the students how to benefit from

their self-assessment by practicing setting goals and developing action plans to improve

one’s own learning.

In the procedure of developing and validating the materials, first, the materials were

drafted and developed by the researcher. After both materials were fully developed, they

were given to two experienced material writers who have experience of writing distance

materials and course modules to get comments and suggestions. Then series of

discussions were held with the persons about their comment to get more complete and

detailed suggestions. Then their comments and suggestions were considered to improve

the materials.

Next, to see the extent the materials fit the target population, two copies of the students’

material were given to second year EFL majoring students, and one copy was given to an

instructor to get comment on the content, structure, and language of the material. Based

on the students’ and the instructor’s reflections, the content, language, and organization

of the materials were revised and then the pilot training was carried out.

At the end of the pilot training, the students and the instructor were asked to evaluate the

material in terms of the content (relevance, interesting, coverage of tasks and activities)

87

language (clarity), organisation (logical sequence, flow) and time allotted. Finally, the

materials were revised based on the comments of the teacher and the students.

3.4.4 The Oral Performance Assessment Tools

The English oral performance assessment was used to gather data on the extent of

validity of LSA of English oral performance. The tools used to generate this data were

tasks for oral performance in classroom and marking schemes.

3.4.4.1 The Tasks

Three oral performance tasks, two for pre-intervention and one for post-intervention

stage, were prepared by the researcher in collaboration with the course instructor based

on the content and objectives of the course Spoken English II (EnLa 342). The two tasks

for the pre-intervention were description (individual) and debating (in pair) and the one

for the post-intervention phases was public speech. These were selected because they

were the tasks that the instructor had planned to carry out continuous classroom

assessment by then.

Both the pre- and post training assessments were given as assignment so that the students

get time to prepare. They also had similar objectives, but with different weight given to

the different components of the assessment. They were aimed to assess the students’

ability to organise the contents logically and present it coherently, ability of using

appropriate vocabulary and expressions, their fluency and accuracy, and their stage

management techniques. Seven topics on which the students debate in pair for about 4-5

minutes and other seven topics on which they talk for 3-5 minutes were chosen by the

researcher discussing with the instructor. The topics were on the learners’ common

experiences like my dorm, my home village/town, the good person I know, how can we

88

save our forest?, What should farmers do to improve their production?, How can we

reduce air pollution?, Advantages and problems of high population. This is because it

minimises the problem of task difficulty caused not by language competence but lack of

background or content information.

3.4.4.2 The Marking Scheme

To score the performances, analytic marking scheme was adapted from The Associated

Examining Board Test in English for Educational Purpose: Assessment Criteria for the

Oral Test (Weir, 1990, 2005). The analytic method is preferred for its relative reliability

for such subjective scoring as compared to the other methods (see Section 2.4.2.3).

The assessment components, the respective weighting assigned to each component, and

the descriptors were discussed and decided on with the course instructor and the students

based on the objectives of the particular assessment, for each of the performances before

and after the training. The marking scheme included the constructs (components of the

assessment), the weighting assigned to each component, scales for each component and

descriptors for each scale and the mark given for each descriptor. The components

include content, focusing on relevance to the topic and adequacy; organisation, focusing

on the logical sequence of contents and coherence of ideas; use of language, grammar

and vocabulary, fluency and intelligibility; and strategy of delivery (see the detail in

Appendix 9).

3.5 Data Gathering Procedure

As the study involved experimental design, data were gathered at the pre-intervention and

post-intervention stages. As discussed in Section 3.2.2, it was planned to take the

89

measures of the variables thrice prior to the intervention to establish stable baseline

thereby ensure internal validity of the study. However, because of the time constraint

during the data collection, i.e., the students and their instructor complained that the

project was taking too much of their time in which they need to work on other courses,

these data were collected twice. The analysis of these data showed little variation

between the results of first round and the second round, indicating the stability of the

variables before the intervention. Therefore, there was no compelling reason for taking

additional measure of the variables. Besides, the missing of the third round data was

compensated by, collecting and analysing data on these variables after about 10 months

from similar non-treatment group of students.

3.5.1 The Pre-intervention Stage

Prior to the intervention data were collected on the two variables under study: validity of

LSA and the subjects’ conception of LSA to establish the baseline. First, the first round

quantitative and qualitative data on the students’ conception (CD1) was gathered using

the questionnaires and the interview consecutively. Next, data on validity of LSA was

collected through the oral performance assessments twice (VD1 & VD2) in an interval of

a week. Then the second round data on conception (CD2) was collected. The reason for

such sequence was to see if the practice of self-assessment by itself and/or maturation

because of time laps changes the conception of the students.

The students’ questionnaires, in both rounds, were administered in a classroom. This is

preferred to minimise the missing of the questionnaire paper and be able to clear if there

were any difficulties, considering the students below-level English language ability, in

understanding the instruction and/or the items. In classroom, they were briefed on the

90

purpose of the questionnaire and were informed the importance of their genuine

responses. They were also informed that they should do it on their own. Then they were

allowed as much time as they need to fill out it.

The group interview with students was conducted with a group of eight students in two

rounds. Though the language of the interview was supposed to be English, the

experiences from the pilot study showed that some of the students had serious difficulty

of using the language. Hence, the students were informed that they could use their mother

tongue or any language with which they are comfortable. With the consent of the

interviewees, the interview was videoed and audio recorded so that it could be transcribed

and analysed carefully later.

The two oral performance assessments to determine the baseline of the extent of validity

of students’ self-assessment were administered after the first round questionnaire and

interview. The first oral performance was in a form of debate in pair and the second one

was public speech on a topic of choice (see Section 3.4.4.1).

In the procedure of administering the first oral performance assessments in the classroom

first, the students were briefed about the task and the topic on which they speak were put

on the board so that everybody chooses one. Then they were informed to get ready for the

next period to talk for 3-5 minutes.

In the procedure of the second oral performance, the students were put into random pairs

and the task was explained. Then the topics on which they are required to debate were

written on the board and the pairs were allowed to choose one of the topics. Then they

were told to get ready for the next period to debate for 4-5 minutes

91

During the performances of the assessment tasks, all the performances were videoed with

the consent of the learners so that the instructors as well as the students could score the

performances by playing the video. It can be assumed that these days the students both

from town and rural areas are accustomed to being videoed. However, to be confident

that videoing in classroom did not affect the students’ performance, the students were

videoed in three sessions prior to the sessions of data gathering while they were carrying

out different activities so that they are used to it and would not be aware of it during the

sessions of data collecting.

After each oral performance, the marking criteria were discussed in the classroom and the

marking schemes were developed by the researcher in collaboration with the instructor

based on Assessment Criteria for the Oral Test adapted from Weir (1990). Then the

students were provided with copies of the marking scheme and they scored their own

performance by watching the videotape. These same performances were also scored by

instructor so that the baseline of validity of the LSA could be determined by comparing

scores from the learner’s and the instructor’s scoring (see Section 2.3.1.2 for ways of

checking validity of LSA).

To ensure the reliability of the instructor’s scoring, inter-scorers’ reliability was checked

by computing Alpha coefficient. First, two experienced instructors, the course instructor

and another one, scored ten performances independently. The Alpha coefficient was

computed using the IBM SPSS statistics 20 and found to be 0.893 indicating reliable

consistency between the two scorers. In addition the instructors discussed on some points

where their scoring varies considerably and came to agreement. Then the course

instructor marked all the performances.

92

To tap quantitative data on the instructors’ conception of LSA, the instructors’

questionnaire was distributed to the nineteen instructors face to face. All of them but one

instructor filled out and returned the papers. Then individual interview was held with five

instructors individually to gather the qualitative data. Here, it should be noted that the

instructors were interviewed individually because during the trial of the questions and the

piloting it was observed that the instructors expressed their discomfort with being

interviewed in a group, and the individual interview was successful during the pilot

study. As done during the students’ interview, these were also videoed and audio

recorded with the consent of each instructor.

3.5.2 The Intervention (Training)

After the data for demarcating the baselines of the students’ conception and the extent of

validity of LSA were taped, the next step was training the students to self-assess English

oral performance to see how intervention affects the existing behaviours. A 12hrs

integrated and explicit four-stage model training on LSA of English oral performance

was conducted for six weeks (2hrs/week). The training was carried out by the course

instructor; the researcher comes in for assistance when it was necessary, for example to

clarify concept.

The training was based on the materials developed for the training (see Section 3.4.3).

Prior to the training, the materials were introduced and explained to the instructor. The

instructor also got enough time to read by himself and anything unclear was clarified

through discussion. Then it was discussed and agreed on to devote 2 hours every week

for the training under a topic assessing your speaking skills. The student material was

distributed to every student; at least a copy for two.

93

In the training, the instructor followed the active learning approach. During the training

sessions, the students were mainly engaged in doing the tasks and activities in their

material individually, in pair, in small groups or the whole class discussion depending on

the guidance given in each activity. The role of the instructor was mainly organising,

facilitating, guiding, and helping the students.

The sessions usually begin with a brief warm up activity like, jokes or general questions

related to the training. This is followed by reflection on the previous session unfinished

tasks or assignments. Next, the instructor briefs and guides through the objectives of the

session and asks students if they want to add or omit any of the objectives. Then the

instructor directs the students to carry out the tasks and activities related to the topics in

their material according to the respective instructions. The instructor also may help the

students on how to put themselves in to groups or pairs where it is necessary. Then he

facilitates the accomplishment of the tasks and activities by, for example, giving initial

input, supervising and helping group or pair discussions etc. The sessions usually finish

by whole class discussion in which individuals, pairs or groups report what they have

done, comment on others work and get feedback from the class. The instructor

summarises the whole thing.

Forty-six students attended the training throughout and two students’ attendance was less

than 50% of the training sessions. At the end of the training, a test was prepared and

administered to the students to see the learning outcome of the training and to assess the

extent to which the objectives of the training were attained. The result of the students

ranges from 42% to 86% implying the effectiveness of the training. However, four

94

students’ result, including the two absentees, was below 35%. Therefore, the post-

training oral performances of these students were discarded during the analysis.

3.5.3 The post-intervention Stage

After the training, to determine whether the training had any effect on the two constructs,

validity and conceptions about LSA, the steps followed at the pre-intervention phase

were repeated. To collect data on the validity of LSA after the intervention, the third

assessment task (see Section 3.4.4.1) was administered in the same procedure as the

former ones. The students were given the topics to choose before hand and had time to

get ready at home. Then the learners and the instructors scored the performance. To

gather data on the learners’ conception of LSA after the training, the group interview and

the questionnaires used at the pre-intervention phase were repeated in the same way done

before.

As mentioned in Section 3.5.1, one more set of data collected after the post intervention

was the data gathered from students through interview and oral performance assessment

to check the internal validity of the finding from the single-group experiment. These data

were collected after the completion of the post-intervention data analysis to avoid any

doubt and confidently attribute the changes observed in the dependent variables to the

training, otherwise question the effect of the training. The interview was conducted with

a group of five volunteer students and the oral performance assessment was administered

to a class of 15 students in the same way as it was done during the pre-intervention stage.

95

3.6 Data Analyses Procedure

As mentioned earlier, the study employed instruments that generated both qualitative and

quantitative data. These data were analysed accordingly. This section describes the

procedures and techniques used in organising and analysing the data.

3.6.1 The Qualitative Data

To analyse the qualitative data from the interviews, qualitative content analysis technique was

used. Content analysis is the process of categorizing qualitative textual data into clusters of

similar entities, or conceptual categories, to identify consistent patterns and relationships between

variables or themes. This analytic method is a way of reducing data and making sense of them

and deriving meaning. It is a commonly used method of analyzing a wide range of textual

data, including interview transcripts, recorded observations. In qualitative content analysis the

general procedure is a generalized sequence of transcribing, coding for themes, looking for

patterns, and making interpretations (D rnyei, 2007; Given, 2008). This procedure was followed

in this study.

As the qualitative data were generated through interviews, the first step to the data

analysis was transcribing the audio and video-recorded interviews. Regarding ways of

transcription, D rnyei (2007) and Schilling (2006) suggests if the interest is analysing

the content meaning rather than linguistic elements, it is important to edit out the supra

segmental and other surface linguistic elements that provide little additional value. D rnyei

also advises the use of standard orthography to evoke the naturalness and readability of the text.

As the focus of this study was not analysing linguistic elements but content meaning,

considering Schilling’s and D rnyei’s suggestion, the interviews were transcribed using the

standard orthography to keep its readability. The paralinguistic features like hesitations,

96

pauses, repetitions, habitual expressions, etc. were edited out because observation from

repeated watching of the video indicated that these features do not affect the

interpretation of the data. The transcription included all the questions and responses and

the interviewer’s extended illustrations were transcribed only where it seemed important

for clarity. The learners’ wrong grammars were also ignored.

The interviews were transcribed by the researcher, but the reliability of the transcription

was checked first. To do this, a part of the students’ interview was transcribed

independently by the researcher and a colleague, a PhD student of ALCM at AAU. The

transcriptions were compared and found to have very little differences. In addition, the

audio and video records made it possible to crosscheck wherever there were problem of

audibility.

For validity of the transcript, printed copies of the completed transcript were given to the

students and the instructors so that they were able to comment if the responses they had

given were distorted or modified in the course of transcription.

The transcriptions then were coded by the researcher thematically using open code5,

computer software for coding textual data. As done with the transcription, the reliability

of the coding was also maintained; a part of the transcript was coded by the researcher

and the same colleague to see if there was any difference. There were few differences in

wording and those were discussed and improved. In the coding procedure, first as a pre-

coding step, the transcript was fed to the computer and then the text was reviewed

thoroughly and repeatedly to be familiar with any mention of ideas related in any ways to

the preconceived themes of the conceptions about LSA (see Section 2.3.2.3) (D rnyei,

97

2007; Yin, 2011). Next 1st level codes were assigned to instances or significant

statements, segments that carry units of meaning according to the idea they were intended

to mention. Then, the 1st level codes were put into categories, and where found necessary,

subcategories were formed. To determine the category to which an utterance is related,

the following indicators were considered:

the frequency with which it is mentioned in the text [ the number of times in

which a thought occurs in the text can be taken as an indicator of its significance

(May2001 in Blaxter, Hughes and Tight 2006)]

its position in the discourse: whether it is mentioned towards the

beginning or the end (this can also be related to the significance speakers

attach to their meaning of utterance and

the emphasis with which it is uttered

Then, the thematically coded categories were interpreted considering both the manifest

level and latent meanings (Berg, 2001; D rnyei, 2007) to catch the meanings of the

responses in relation to the categories of themes raised. Lastly, the meanings were

interpreted in relation to the categories.

3.6.2 The Quantitative Data

To analyse the two sets of quantitative data – the English oral performance scores and the

questionnaires- IBM SPSS statistics 20 was used. The data from the questionnaire and

from the oral performance assessment were first entered into the software window. To

avoid the missing and mistyping of data because of being busy going to and from paper,

key board and the screen, as suggested by D rnyei, a friend helped in taking turn in

98

dictating and keying data into the computer. Then, the data were cleaned and screened by

looking for outliers and missing data.

After the data were made ready, the data from the questionnaire were analysed and

interpreted using the descriptive statistics (the mean values and percentages). The

interpretations were done mainly from two angles: comparing the percentage of

agreement and disagreement for each statement and looking at the mean values of

responses of each statement and the corresponding scale used.

The data from the performance assessment was analysed by comparing the instructors’

scoring with that of the learners’. To do this, first descriptive statistics (mean and

standard deviation) were computed, and then to see if the mean differences were

significant, t-test of the inferential statistics were computed and the figures were

interpreted.

3.7 The Pilot Study

A pilot study is generally considered a small-scale trial of the proposed methods procedures

instruments and materials. The point of carrying out a pilot study is to try out to and revise the

methods and instruments. It helps to uncover any problems, and to address them before the main

study is carried out. It is also an important means of assessing the feasibility and usefulness of the

data collection methods and making any necessary revisions before they are used with the

research participants. This is particularly very important for novice researcher and for the self-

developed instruments as it is the case in this study (Mackey & Gass, 2005).

99

3.7.1 Summary of the Pilot Study

The pilot study was carried out after the instruments were fully developed. The primary

objective of the pilot study was to try out the instruments: questionnaires, interview

schedule, marking schemes, and training materials, developed to be used in the main

study and to check the feasibility of methods designed and to make necessary

amendments if necessary. It was also intended to help the researcher to gain experience to

tackle problems that are usually likely to encounter in educational research.

It was carried out in the same university where the main study was conducted and

involved similar group and less number of subjects. It involved a class of thirty-two

students and 10 instructors. The qualitative aspect involved a group of four students and

three instructors and the quantitative aspect participated all of the students and

instructors.

Data was collected by administering the questionnaires and carrying out interviews with

the group of students prior to and after intervention, and with the instructors individually.

The training was carried out for eight weeks, 1hr/week.

The qualitative data were analysed by transcribing coding and categorising the codes by

themes. The quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics

using SPSS v16.

3.7.2 Lesson Learnt from the Pilot Study

As indicated in the above section, the point in carrying out this pilot study was to check

the effectiveness of the methods, instruments, and materials before taking the course of

the full-scale research. Hence, important insights were gained from the piloting; the

100

course and the result of the piloting helped to detect the weaknesses and foresee some

unseen problems and make necessary amendments. The following lessons focus on the

aspects that needed modification and their implication for the main study.

One of the important observation concerns the language of the interview with the

students. The assumption before the piloting was that the second year EFL class would be

able to express their idea in English relatively clearly and comfortably. Nonetheless, the

piloting sessions of the interview indicated that the students had serious difficulty in

expressing themselves in English. Moreover, even when they were informed that they

could use any language they are comfortable with, many of the students in the interview

group insisted on using English even those who had considerable difficulty and were

poor to the extent they failed to produce any meaningful string of two or three sentences.

It was speculated that this problem could arise from anxiety caused by wrong perception

about the interviewer (the researcher); they could have thought that the interviewer

expect them to be perfect in English. To mitigate this problem, it was necessary that, in

addition to encouraging them to use any language they need, the interviewer should take

some time to develop friendly relationship with the target student population. This helped

to improve the situation; in the main study, the students tended to switch between English

and their native language to express their idea more clearly.

The second concern was the modification of the interview format with the instructors.

Initially the interview with both groups of respondents was intended to take the group

interview format. In practice, however, the instructors were very reluctant to be

interviewed in a group. During the piloting of the interview schedule, when asked for

101

cooperation to participate in the group interview, the instructors expressed their

willingness but preferred if it would be an individual interview. Then it was felt that if

individuals are pressed on to join the group, there could be a danger of over-reporting the

desirable behaviours and under-report the undesirable ones with an intention of being

politically correct. Therefore, to elicit the genuine behaviour and secure the validity of

the findings, it seems necessary to cope with the feeling and preference of the

respondents in the main study, as it was done in the piloting.

Another observation was regarding length of the interview with the students. It was

observed that students seemed to feel restless after about an hour-long attention.

Therefore, it was decided to limit the length of the group interview with the students to

about 45 to 50 minutes.

Two more observations from the pilot study were related to the training. The first one is

the timing and schedule. From the students’ and the instructor’s general comment on the

training (in addition to their comment on the material) and as it was observed during the

training, first, the 8 hours were not enough to cover the material, and second the 1hr/week

schedule was not convenient for the nature of the tasks and activities in the material. A

week-long gap between two training sessions seemed to cause forgetting of the previous

session point of discussions thus needed longer time devoted each period for extended

revisions. In addition, the 1 hour-long session was not suitable for nature of the training,

particularly for the practice phase. To solve these problems, 2-hours/week schedule was

used for six weeks for the main study.

102

The second thing related to the training was concerned with the part of the researcher in

the training. In the piloting, the researcher helped the instructor to get clear understanding

of the material and discussed on some issues related to presentation in the classroom, but

left the training totally to the instructor except for observations. However, the observation

of the training session and a few students’ comment show that it would be better if the

training was conducted jointly with the researcher, for example as a sort of team teaching

or the researcher being overt participant. In addition, it can be seen from the students,

results of the test on the training cannot be appreciated (the highest score was 79%). This

indicated that the training should be improved in any way. Therefore, during the main

study the researcher increased the frequency of observation and sometimes helped the

instructor in clarifying concepts and summarising whole class discussions, but refrained

from fully participating in the training to minimize researcher’s bias.

Lastly, the pilot study had suggested the sequence with which the qualitative and the

quantitative data on the students’ conceptions should be gathered. It was learned from the

experience of the piloting that if the interview is conducted prior to the administration of

the questionnaire, it can affect the awareness of the subjects i.e., the subjects could derive

certain understanding and modify their behaviour when they fill out the questionnaire and

consequently, the data from the questionnaire would be distorted. Therefore, the

questionnaire was administered first, and the interview followed during the main study.

To sum up, the observations from the piloting has helped to detect and deal with some

procedural and ethical aspects that could have been potential threats to the validity of the

findings of the study. Going through the process also booted the researchers’ experiences

in doing research and dealing with much inconveniency during the main study.

103

3.8 Chapter Summary

This chapter dealt with methodological issues of the study. It indicated that mixed

methods approach was adapted because of the nature of the constructs studied. Next, it

sketched the design of the study. It showed that interviewing, single-group quasi-

experiment, and questionnaire survey were the designs used in the study; and interview

schedule, questionnaires, and performance assessment tools were the instruments used to

collect data. The subjects were a classe of 2nd

year EFL students and the instructors in the

English program of Wollega University. They were sampled wholly for the quantitative

aspects, because the population size was manageable, and selected for the qualitative

aspect based on convenience.

It also described the nature and purpose of the instruments and the reason why they are

selected; and how they were developed by the researcher. Interview guiding questions

and performance tests were the main tools for gathering qualitative and quantitative data

respectively. Questionnaires were also used as a way of data triangulation. Training

intervention using training materials was also the part of the quasi-experimental design.

Lastly, it described the procedures followed in gathering and analysing the data. The

qualitative data were analysed following the narrative content analysis method, and the

quantitative data were analysed using the descriptive and inferential statistics. It finished

by summarising the pilot study and lesson learnt from the piloting. The following chapter

presents the data analysis and discussion.

104

4 Chapter Four

Data Presentation and Analysis

4.0 Introduction

The preceding chapter dealt with the description of the approach, design, strategies, and

instruments used in this study. It also described the procedures used for gathering and

analysing the data. This chapter presents the description and the analysis of the data. It

has two major parts. The first part the data are analysed along the three constructs

studied; the second part gives discussion and interpretation of the findings from the

analysis of the data.

4.1 Conceptions of LSA

As indicated in the preceding chapter, data on the instructors’ and the students’

conception of LSA was obtained through interviews and questionnaires from instructors

and students. These data are presented accordingly.

4.1.1 The Instructors’ Conception of LSA

4.1.1.1 Data from the Interview

The interview involved five instructors in the English program of Wollega University

referred to as InA, InB, InC InD and InE whenever necessary to keep the confidentiality

of the names of the instructor, The instructors had different level of qualification and

teaching experiences in tertiary level. One of them had Bed degree in English and one

and half year experience in teaching English in university. Two of them had MA degree

in TEFL and two and three years teaching experience in university, but had more than

105

four years in secondary schools. The rest two, one MA in TEFL and the other in

Linguistics had taught for four years in university and had had long years of experience

in teaching English and other subjects in different levels including primary schools and

TTCs. In addition, three of the instructors completed the HDP training that is given in

Ethiopian higher education institutions. By then, all of them were teaching at least two

English language courses in the university.

The transcripts of the five respondents’ response were combined for coding and analysed

as a whole to identify the conception that exist across the respondents. The transcript for

each instructor is appended as Appendix 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E for the 5 instructors

respectively. The results are presented thematically based on the six main themes that

constitute the conception of LSA, and around which the interview guiding questions were

built. These themes include the main purpose of classroom assessment, where the

responsibility of the assessment should resides, their understanding of the concept of

LSA, appropriateness of learners’ participation in the assessment process, its validity and

perceived merits and/or demerits. To make the interpretations clear, direct short and long

quotations and paraphrasing are used where deemed necessary.

4.1.1.1.1 Main Purpose of Classroom Assessment

The first theme is the main purpose for which the instructors prepare and carry out

classroom assessments. This theme is related to conception of LSA in that the

individuals’ understanding of and belief about the why of classroom assessment is

directly related to the way the person perceives students’ role in the assessment.

106

The instructors responded to questions like ‘what do you think is/are the main purpose of

classroom assessment?’ and why do you assess your students in your classroom?’ The

instructors identified different purposes that are put into seven first level categories of

purposes that again are put into two major categories containing two first levels each and

one major category containing three first levels as shown in Table 3 below. In the table,

the categories are put from top to down according to the priority they were given by the

respondents and each of the categories is described and illustrated by quoting instances

from the transcript.

Category 1: Auditing

In Table 3, auditing is assigned to the instances that explicitly or implicitly indicate that

classroom assessment is used as a tool for checking off whether or not learning has

happened. The two first level codes under this category are checking whether students

understood what they were taught and which of the objectives were achieved. All of the

instructors articulated either of these forms of checking students’ learning outcomes in

their first or second instance related to purpose of classroom assessment. In their

responses to the probes related to this theme they promptly and most frequently used

expressions like ‘to check how much students have learned’ ‘to check whether or not

students understood’, ‘to check whether or not objectives are achieved’.

In this category, the respondents gave priority to checking understanding. For instance,

the first respondent mentioned three purposes of classroom assessment: to check their

understanding, to put them into categories and to help them improve their learning.

107

Table 3 Category of Purposes of Classroom Assessment (by instructors)

2nd

level 1st level

Auditing

Checking understanding

Checking attainment of the course objective

Describing

Categorising students

Giving grade & reporting

Improving

Give feedback (teacher)

Adjust teaching methods (teacher)

Share idea (students)

When asked if he can put them in their order of priority, he said “for me the first one is

the first priority; just I assess to check whether they learnt or not what I taught them. This

is my prior purpose” (InA). InD also reflected the same feeling saying, “I feel that assessment

is a means or a tool that to check for the students their current performance ...whether they

understand or not the portion you taught them. So I think it is a means or a tool for checking

students understanding.”

The other respondents indicated that they use classroom assessment to check what the

students have learned, and this is mainly done to make sure that the instructional

objectives were met. The following respondent mention the use of assessment as a tool

for checking understanding and stresses attainment of general or specific objectives either

at certain point of a course or at the end.

108

... it is or has multipurpose not only one purpose. The first purpose of I think I mean

of assessment is I mean it enables to check whether the students understand or not

especially the objectives it could be either general or specific (InC).

The above view was also supported by another instructor. He said,

“Most of the time especially in our today time the main purpose is to check whether the

objectives set before were achieved or not. There could be two types: either at the end to

check the end result or the progress. So we can see in these two ways (InB).

Category 2: Describing students’ achievement

The purpose of assessment prioritized next to checking off learning outcomes is

‘describing’. The word is used here to refer to the assessment done for reporting

learners’ achievement for judgmental purpose in the form of grades and for grouping

students according to their achievement. The respondents used expressions like strength

and weakness, high performing and low performing, top middle low. These expressions

were also mentioned frequently and even one instructor put it as the primary one. He

said:

....So in my opinion the main purpose of assessment is to identify the students

strengths and weakness and to know their academic status whether they top

middle or low and then to give remedies on the weak area (InE).

However, for the other instructors this comes secondary. After explaining the primary purpose of

classroom assessment, InA continued,

“...the second is as I think it helps to identify the standard of our students because

identifying academic standard of our students helps us to help them differently because

students do have different standards: there are high performing students, low performing

students and medium performing students by using assessment we can identify them...

The instructors also frequently mentioned giving grade as the second priority. For

instance InC, after putting the first thing first, continued “not only that the teacher also

gives grades at the end of the course.” InD also reflected this view in the same way. He

109

extended his response “You also grade the students achievement that is grades because to decide

they promote or fail.”

Category 3: Improving students learning

The third category identified by the respondents was ‘improving learning’, which was

assigned a peripheral position. Expressions relating assessment purpose to improving

learning and teaching are mentioned sparsely and doubtfully in the discourse. For the

respondents, improving learning is not the main reason for assessing; it may come as a

side effect. InA, for example, putting it in the third place, reflected the idea that

assessment helps students indirectly i.e., students correct their errors from the feedback

they get from instructors, and instructors use it to identify the group of students who need

help. Similarly, after mentioning assessment as a means of identifying weak and strong

learners, InE added, “...then to give remedies on the weak area [areas on which students

have difficulty].” InsC, expressing his belief that it might also inform the teacher to

modify his/her teaching method, added, “Another importance of assessment might be it

helps the students to share idea among themselves.”

Other instructors raise a point about improvement only when probed further. They were

also uncertain that assessment really improves learning. When asked for confirmation of

the purpose he already mentioned, InB responded, “ sure that is it but not only that it may

also help the instructor it may help the teacher himself sometimes to device the

methodology mechanism if the mechanism devised is not of that much effect.”

Generally, the instructors’ responses indicated that while they held the belief and

understanding that classroom assessment is primarily done for either inspecting or

110

describing students learning or both, the improvement may or may not come as a

peripheral consequence. In addition, none of the respondents showed preference to or

negative feeling towards any of the three categories of purposes they identified, other

than implying the priority of the purposes they perceived.

4.1.1.1.2 Who is Responsible for Classroom Assessment

Next, the instructors were asked their belief about responsible body to carry out

classroom assessment. Instructors reflected two views about who should do classroom

assessment. Two of the respondents, mentioned teacher as the main responsible body, but

had the belief that students should assess themselves. For example, InB said, “So most of

the time the teacher should assess in the classroom based on their achievement based on

their work day to day work. Students can also assess each other”. Although these

instructors had the belief that learners should assess themselves, they couldn’t say how

the learners do the assessment; and what they mentioned as ‘assess themselves’ does not

conform to the concept of involving learners in assessment (see Section 2.2). Responding

to the question, an instructor explained:

...the students should also evaluate themselves to know at what level they are

performing, they have to know themselves. Are they performing well, are they

underperforming or are they performing at medium level. Each and every student

should evaluate himself. I don’t know how we can let them evaluate themselves

since I’m not in it practically, but basically I believe both the teacher and the

students should be involved in assessment (InA).

For the other instructors it is unquestionable that the course instructor is the only

responsible person to do assessment.

I think it is clear I mean it is obvious it should be the teacher who gives the

course. The course instructor knows the general and specific objectives of the

course and he has to check continuously whether he has achieved his objectives.

The instructor also must report the students’ grade at the end of the semester or

111

course. For this reason he is responsible for assessing his students. He is also

professionally trained. Anybody cannot do it. It is difficult for others to I mean

who are not involved in teaching the course they do not know the level of the

students which content they have covered. So this is clear as I think (InC)

InE also stressed:

...the teacher it must be the subject teacher. After finishing a topic or a portion of

the course he or she has to check whether or not the students understood it

whether or not the objectives are achieved to decide to continue or to make

remedies or revisions. He or she is also expected to give grade at the end so

he has to take continuous assessment of his students. this is one part aspect of his

job professionally. It is difficult for others to I mean for example the

department only supervise and give guidance but do not directly involve in

assessment the instructor knows the level of the students what and how he taught

which content they have covered. So, no question I think it must be the instructor.

Generally, the instructors had the belief that the teacher is responsible person to do

classroom assessment because s/he is the knower and it is his/her job. Although some

respondents had the view that students should assess themselves, they could not mention

it how they would do it.

4.1.1.1.3 Description of LSA

The third theme of the interview question was how the concept of LSA and the

procedures it involves is conceived. To elicit data pertinent to this theme, questions like

those that ‘what is LSA/ how do you describe LSA?’ were posed to all of the instructors.

In response to this question, all the instructors described LSA in its simplest level. They

defined it as the students’ activities like comparing one’s achievement to that of a

classmate after getting back test results or reflecting on how well one has performed on a

performance or how many of the questions one got right after exams or how well one can

understand, for example, while reading for exams. The following extract is from

instructor’s response to a question ‘how do you describe LSA?’

112

it is one way of assessment. Teacher’s assessment is formal one and learners’ self

assessment is another one. It is the way students evaluate themselves. They always check

whether they understand a topic or what they learned. A student can say which course is

easy and which one difficult for him. For example, when they study they can evaluate

whether he or she has understood it. Again after doing an assessment task exam or a test he

or she can check how much he or she has answered and missed. After the exam also they

evaluate themselves by comparing one’s result with that of classmate’s how well they have

done the exam therefore students always make self-assessment (InC)

InB also describes the procedures that self-assessment involves as “checking their results,

checking their end results or progress and check if they have achieved their target

objectives. InD, explaining how students assess themselves, said:

A student can assess or evaluate him/herself by thinking what he can do and

cannot do. For example, when he study he can evaluate how well he understand

and which topic is difficult for him. They can also evaluate themselves after doing

assignments or taking a test. When they see the result they can evaluate how

much they have done. A student usually evaluates himself after getting the result

of the test by comparing with their classmates. So self assessment is the way

students check their ability and learning before and after they take tests and

exams.

This indicates that their understanding of the concept of LSA is limited to the simplest

form identified by Boud & Brew (1995). The instructors’ responses show that they

equated LSA with practices like self-testing, self-grading and self-marking which are

conceptually different from LSA proper. Such equating is similar with what is observed

in the literature (see Section 2.2.1).

4.1.1.1.4 Appropriateness of Involving Learners in Assessment Process

In this theme, the subjects’ reflected their thinking about whether students should

participate in the whole process of assessment. Being cognizant of their understanding of

concept of LSA in its non-technical meaning, the interviewer directed the subjects to the

concept of advanced LSA and asked their views on whether or not it is appropriate to

113

engage students in assessment in its full-fledged form. The instructors reflected three

different, even, self-contradicting views. One view supports partial involvement, i.e.,

letting the learners to participate in the setting of criteria, but not in mark their own work

using the criteria, questioning the students’ honesty.

Reflecting the above view, a respondent commented that while it is important to involve

students in setting criteria it is difficult to trust students marking their work. He said,

“I think students should be involved in setting criteria of assessment together

with the teacher ...” “... If students assess themselves you know everybody is

selfish by nature you know, so their aim is to score high mark to achieve high

grade” (InD).

The second view is total objection of learners’ involvement in the process of assessment.

The respondents had the thinking that learners cannot be involved in setting criteria and

marking because they do not have the knowledge and skill. InC had the belief that

learners “... are not aware of what assessment is and its criteria....”, and the students’

limited ability and selfishness is a problem if they are involved in assessment scheme. He

stated:

.... If students are involved in the assessment process I think they can contribute

towards the improvement of the teaching learning process but they have no

experience they have no awareness, ...; therefore, they can put exaggerated marks

because they need to score good grade. Therefore their marking cannot be

accepted (InC).

The third view seem to support letting students to participate in both activities, setting

criteria and marking, but express fear of its practicability because of students’ lack of

knowledge and experience’, and selfishness. InB commented, “if students are allowed to

assess themselves, they can set criteria and give mark, they can do though there are

difficulties in the practical aspect.” InA also held the same, but self-contradictory view.

114

In support of the view, he said, “when we say students should assess themselves they

should have some benchmark or some criteria set by the teacher or in consensus with the

students. After setting criteria I think student can evaluate himself in terms of the already

set criteria”. Nevertheless, when probed further, he mentioned ideas that seem

contradicting to each other. He said,

I don’t think students should evaluate their tests their assignments because that

could lead them to be biased for themselves. Even about setting criteria in

practical world it is not practicable, but if we really need to make them evaluate

themselves we have to do that (InA).

Although some of the instructors support partial or holistic involvement, their response

does not seem to be grounded on any knowledge or experience because as it is indicated

in Section 4.1.1.1.3 above, they did not have clear understanding of what LSA proper

really entails. Their answers are likely to come from the speculation they made about

LSA based on what they just learned from the interview questions.

4.1.1.1.5 Validity of LSA

This theme is related to the subjects’ belief about the dependability of the students’

scoring of their own work. Having less positive view of appropriateness of students’

marking their own performance (Section 4.1.1.1.4 above), the instructors were cynical

about students assessing themselves. They expressed strong disbelief about validity of

learners’ scoring their own performance and related this to students’ dishonesty and lack

of ability and experience. One instructor, responding to the question ‘do you think

students score their own work fairly correctly?’ rightly said “no here no doubt to say that

they exaggerate their mark. The students want to get high mark good grade, so they do

not put the right mark they will be biased.” (InC). InE also persistently argued that

115

students cannot be honest scoring their own work because the students’ life after the

campus is based on the grade they can show to their hirer not on what they know and can

do; and complained that this is because of the existing problem of the recruitment system

of the country. In his words:

... you want to be confident when you get out of the campus you have to get job to

live your life you have to get your livelihood so in educational level the first

criteria is you have better mark or better grade when you where in school so hirers

the job providers search you by your mark they look at only the paper so the main

aim or criteria for job provider is what is on the paper so they look at the paper if

they see good grade they select you by the grade not with your real potential

anything else so involving students in the assessment is not that much necessary

and important because students do not know that the aim of learning is a quest for

knowledge they think learning is getting mark to get job

This implies that there is a strong belief among the instructors that learners marking of

their own performance is unacceptable because they cannot and do not score correctly

and honestly.

4.1.1.1.6 Benefits and/or Downsides of LSA

The instructors were, at last, asked to speculate anything students and teachers may

benefit from LSA despite its invalidity; or additional problem it may impose. They

identified one benefit related to cognitive ability and some none cognitive elements.

In the table, the Cognitive category is used to refer to the ways in which LSA directly

contributes to the increase of learners’ content learning outcomes, and the Non-cognitive

benefits refer to the contribution of the practice of LSA to the improvement of the

emotional and social behaviours that have direct impact on the cognitive development.

116

Table 4 Benefits of LSA (instructors)

Cognitive

‘internalising mistake’ (to mean getting a closer look at one’s

own mistake) and learning from it

Non-cognitive

encouraging independence

confidence

Increase transparency & minimise complaints

responsibility

increasing commitment

participation

In response to the question related to the contribution of LSA, InA used phrases like “... it

develops transparency in grading” and “.... they feel committed to their work”. InC said

“for sure it helps. People internalize [clearly identify] their mistake as they view than

when people assess them”. An instructor also explained how it encourages self-learning

and confidence. He relates:

“when they assess themselves when a person assesses himself or another, she or

he identify mistakes and just consult the teacher or any expert. So it can

develop confidence within the person or within the student who assess

himself or herself. So it can develop confidence. It can facilitate learning also

self-learning” (InB).

The only problem mentioned other than its invalidity was that “it takes time for the

teacher to set criteria or guiding the students needs additional time” (InB). There is also a

view that LSA is irrelevant. InE expressed the view that if it is not valid, it is meaningless

117

to spend time on it. He stresses that unless self-assessment is valid it is “just waste of

time”.

The instructors’ speculative response to the question related to the potential benefit of

LSA showed that while they could guess some of the non-cognitive aspects they failed to

think the way it helps the development of the cognitive ability of the students.

Generally, the instructors seem to have the conception that assessment is mainly used as

an instrument for measuring and describing learning outcomes and the teacher is the only

authorized party to do so. Their understanding of the concept of learners LSA is also

mistaken and consequently they did not have positive view about the learners’

involvement in the assessment process and were not clearly aware of its academic

significance in improving quality and quantity of learners’ learning.

4.1.1.2 Data from the Questionnaire

The instructors’ questionnaire was Likert-type multi-item 5-point scales questionnaire

developed to tap quantitative data on their conception of LSA. The questionnaires elicited

information on the same themes as the interview questions i.e., the main purpose they

attach to a classroom assessment, who should be involved in it, their awareness of the

concept of LSA, its validity and perceived advantages and/or problems. As indicated

earlier, the instructors’ questionnaire was distributed to nineteen instructors and eighteen

instructors filled out and returned the questionnaire papers properly. The items were

clustered and analysed according to the themes to which they are related; and are

presented in six sections.

118


The statements in this theme of the questionnaire are subdivided in to two: describing

achievement and improving achievement. The first group of four items, item 1, 2, 7 and

10 elicited the instructors’ extent of agreement to the statements that suppose the purpose

of classroom assessment is primarily to describe learning out comes. These are presented

in Tables 5 and 6.

Table 5 Classroom assessment for describing achievement

Table 5 indicates that the majority of the instructors showed their agreement to all the

four statements. More than 66% of the respondents agree or strongly agree and small

proportion, 22.2% and less, of the respondents showed their disagreement or unable to

decide. None of them strongly disagreed with any of the four statements. In addition, the

Item

No.

Statements

The main purpose of

classroom

assessment is ...

Extent of agreement

m

ean

1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 %

Tota

l

1 to check whether or

not students have

mastered what they

have learned

7

38.8

8

44.4

2

11.1

1

5.5

0

0

18

1.83

2 indentifying the

strengths and

weakness of the

learners

6

33.3

9

50

2

11.1

1

5.5

0

0

18

1.89

7 checking learners’

progress against the

course objectives

5

27.7

8

44.4

4

22.2

1

5.5

0

0

18

2.06

10 grading and

categorising students

2 11.1 10 55.5 4 22.2 2 16.6 0 0 18 2.33

119

mean value for all the four statements ranges from 1.83 to 2.33, which almost correspond

to the ‘Agree’ label in the scale. This shows that the instructors agree with the view that

describing the learning outcomes is the main purpose of classroom assessment.

The next group of three statements sought the instructors’ degree of agreement on the

view that the teacher’s purpose of carrying out classroom assessment is improving

learning. As displayed in Table 8 below, the instructors’ responses to the three statements

also indicate that most of them agree with the three statements. The percentage of the

respondents who agreed to all the three items is above 66.6%. About 22% failed to decide

to agree or disagree to items 8 & 11, and only 11.1% disagreed to item 11. The mean

values are 1.67, 2.06 and 2.44, which approximate the agreement scale. This generally

implies that most of the respondents agree with the idea that the teachers assess their

students so that it helps the students to improve their learning.

Table 6 Classroom assessment for improving learners' achievement

Item

No. Statements

The main purpose of

classroom assessment is ...

Extent of agreement

Tota

l

mea

n 1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 %

3 is helping learners to

improve their learning

8 44.4 8 44.4 2 11.1 0 0 0 0 18 1.67

8 is providing feedback to

students about their own

performance

3 16.6 11 61.1 4 22.2 0 0 0 0 18 2.06

11 getting information for

the teacher on the way

s/he teaches

0 0 12 66.6 4 22.2 2 11.1 0 0 18 2.44

As can be seen from table 5 and 6, most of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed

with both views about the main purpose of the classroom assessment; they did not

120

differentiate one from the other. This implies that they may not have a clear

understanding about what the most important and the secondary purposes of classroom

assessment are.

4.1.1.2.2 Whether or not students should be involved in the assessment

scheme

The second major theme of the questionnaire focuses on the instructors’ view about the

appropriateness of learners’ participation in assessment process. This contained a group

of four statements to which the instructors responded as displayed in Table 7 below.

Table 7 Appropriateness of learners' involvement in assessment process

Item

No.

Statements

Extent of agreement

T

ota

l

m

ean

1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 %

4 Students should

participate in

assessing their own

work

1 5.6 5 27.8 8 44.4 3 16.7 1 5.6 18 2.89

18 It’s the instructor’s

job to evaluate

students’ work

6 33.3 9 50 3 16.6 0 0 0 0 18 1.83

19

Assessment is one

aspect of the learning

process in which

students should take

part

3 16.6 7 38.8 7 38.8 1 5.5 0 0 18 2.33

21

I consider the real

assessment to be

assessment that is

done by the teacher

12

66.6

4

22.2

2

11.1

0

0

0

0

18

1.44

The instructors’ responses to these statements show that they seem to hold mixed view

about the appropriateness of students’ involvement in assessment process. Majority of

121

the instructors (more than 83.%) agreed to the statements that assessment is the

instructors’ job (item18) and real assessment is done by the teacher (item21). The mean

values of these items are 1.83 and 1.44 respectively. Again, about 55% agreed to item 19

that states students should take part in assessment, and 44.4% were unable to decide

whether students participate in assessing their own work (item 4). The mean value of this

item also draws near the Undecided scale (2.89). This indicates that majority of the

respondents did not have a clear idea whether or not it is necessary and appropriate to

involve the students in the assessment of their own work.


A group of three statements elicited the instructors’ response on their understanding of

the concept of the LSA.

Table 8 Instructors’ understanding of the concept of LSA

Item

.N

o.

Statements

Extent of agreement

T

ota

l

m

ean

1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 %

5 Learners’ self-assessment

means students marking their

own test or assignment using

answer keys provided by the

instructor

9

50

8

44.4

0

0

1

5.5

0

0

18

1.61

6 Learners’ self-assessment is a

technique of assessment where

students participate in setting

criteria and scoring of their

own performance

0

0

5

27.7

11

61.1

2

11.1

0

0

18

2.83

9 Self-assessment means

checking how well you

understood a topic while you

are learning or studying a

subject

2

11.1

13

72.2

3

16.6

0

0

0

0

18

2.06

122

The data in the Table 8 indicates that most of the instructors, 94.4% and 83.3%, showed

their strong and/or moderate agreement with statements in item 5 and 9 respectively that

describe LSA in its simplest form and lower level. The mean for the two items is also

1.61, and 2.06, approximating to the agreement scale. In their response to item 6 which

describe LSA in its advanced proper sense, majority of the instructors (61.1%) were

unable to decide. This indicates that the instructors do not seem to have a clear concept of

what is meant by learners’ LSA; they seem to go with statements that relate LSA to a

simple technical knowledge interest and unable to decide about the statements that relate

to a more advanced communicative and interpretive interest.


The next group of four statements elicited the instructors’ response with regard to the

issues of validity of LSA. Table 9 displays the result.

Table 9 Validity of LSA

Item

No.

Statements

Extent of agreement

T

ota

l

M

ean

1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 %

14 Learners are more

likely to provide

inflated information

on their own

performance

14 77.8 4 22.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 1.22

24 Students assess their

own performance

honestly

0 0 1 5.6 3 16.7 6

33.3

8 44.4 18 4.17

27 It is difficult for

students to

understand the

assessment criteria

1 11.1 10 55.5 6 33.3 2

11.1

0 0 18 2.44

29 Students’ self-

assessment can

count to final grade

0 0 1 5.6 6 33.3 4 2.22 7

38.9

18 3.94

123

As the Table shows, All (100%) and majority (66.6%) of the instructors respectively

agreed to item 14 and 27 that state LSA cannot be valid. The mean values of these items

are also 1.22 and 2.44 that correspond to agreement scale. Similarly, Majority, 77.7% and

61% of the instructors respectively showed disagreement to items 24 and 29, which

contain the statements that suppose LSA has validity. The mean values of these items are

also 4.17 and 3.94 that are approximating to 4, the disagreement scales. This indicates

that most of the instructors held the view that LSA cannot be valid.

4.1.1.2.5 Significance of LSA

This part of the questionnaire sought instructors’ response to statements about the

benefits of learner participation in the assessment process in improving learning. The

statements are grouped in to two: a group of seven statements related to cognitive and

meta- cognitive benefits, and a group of five statements related to non-cognitive benefits

of LSA. Table 10 presents the data on the cognitive benefits and Table 11 presents the

data on the non-cognitive benefits.

Table 10 shows most of the instructors (72.2% 100%) agreed and/or strongly agreed to

all of the statements that suppose different types of cognitive and meta-cognitive benefits.

The mean value of these items also ranges from 1.61 to 2.22 which confirm the strength

of their agreement. And, majority of the respondents (66.6%) failed to agree or disagree

to statement which make the proposition that assessing their own performance help

students little to improve their learning (item 20). The mean value of this item is also 3;

corresponds to the Undecided scale. This indicates that the respondents have the view

that LSA has beneficial cognitive effect on students’ learning.

124

Table 10 Cognitive benefits of LSA

Item

No.

Statements

Extent of agreement

Tota

l

mea

n

1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 %

12

Participating in

assessment scheme helps

students to improve ways

of approaching

their learning

7

38.9

11

61.1

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

1.69

13

If students assess their

own work, they would be

able to recognize their

errors easily

8

44.4

9

50

1

5.5

0

0

0

0

18

1.61

15

Involving learners in

assessing their own

learning outcomes is a

good way of providing

feedback on their own

performance

2

11.1

14

77.7

2

11.1

0

0

0

0

18

2

20

Participating in assessing

quality of their

performance has little

effect on improving

students learning

0

0

3

16.6

12

66.6

3

16.6

0

0

18

3

22

Assessing themselves

makes learners more

aware of what they need

to know in the subject

3

16.6

12

66.6

3

16.6

0

0

0

0

18

2

23

Learners’ self-assessment

enables them to

understand the quality of

performance expected of

them

6

33.3

12

66.6

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

1.67

30

Assessing themselves

makes them think what

and how much to do to

achieve the learning

objectives

4

22.2

9

50

2

11.1

3

16.6

0

0

18

2.22

In Table 11, among the items each of which supposes different types of non cognitive

benefits, majority of the instructors, 66.5% and 83.2% agreed or strongly agreed to the

125

propositions that LSA make students feel responsible (item 16 ) and it increases

participation (item 32) respectively.

Table 11 Non-cognitive benefits of LSA

Item

No.

Statements

Extent of agreement

Tota

l

Mea

n

1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 %

16 Assessing their own

work makes students feel

responsible for their

learning

5 27.7 7 38.8 4 22.2 2 11.1 0 0 18 2.17

17

Getting students to

assess their own work is

a way of solving

cheating problems and

disruptiveness

0 0 2 11.1 12 66.6 4 22.2 0 0 18 3.11

25 If students are to assess

their own work, they

would get bored

0 0 3 16.6 12 66.6 3 16.6 0 0 18 3.00

28 Assessing their own

work improves the social

climate of the teaching

learning process

0 0 2 11.1 2 11.1 9 50 5 27.7 18 3.94

32 Learners’ self-

assessment is the way of

increasing students’

participation in learning

activities

7 38.8 8 44.4 2 11.1 1 5.5 0 0 18 1.83

The mean values of these items also approximate the agreement scale. About 77% of

them disagreed to the idea that LSA improves social climate of the classroom. However,

majority of the respondents (more than 77%) couldn’t decide whether or not to agree to

the statement that assume LSA solves problem of disruptiveness (item 17) and the

statement that is negatively stated: LSA add boredom (item 25). The mean values of

these items are 3.11 and 3.00.

126

Generally, the instructors identified ‘developing sense of responsibility’ and ‘increasing

participation’ as the only contribution of LSA in improving learning. This indicates most

of the respondents did not have clear understanding or were sceptical about the non-

cognitive benefits that LSA contributes to the improvement of the learning outcomes.

This scepticism can be related to their understanding of the concept of LSA because in

Section 4.1.2.1.2.3 above it was observed that respondents described LSA in its simplest

technical level that contribute little to the cognitive and non cognitive development. It

should also be noted that the view of the respondents regarding the cognitive aspects

could not be said to come out of their knowledge and experience. Therefore, it is difficult

to say that the respondents’ perception of the value of LSA is clear because the way it is

conceptualised and its contribution to learning cannot be separated.

4.1.1.2.6 Relevance of LSA

The last two items sought the instructors’ response on whether or not LSA is relevant at

all. As Table 12 below indicates, the respondents’ view about whether or not LSA is a

part of the teaching learning process is mixed.

Table 12 Relevance of learners' SA

Item

No.

Statements

Extent of agreement

Tota

l

mea

n

1 % 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 %


is an important part of the

teaching /learning process

1 5.6 5 27.8 7 38.9 4 22.2 0 0 18 2.72


is just putting meaningless

burden on students and

teachers

0 0 3 16.7 6 33.3 8 44.4 1 5.6 18 3.39

127

In response to the statements, (33.4) of the respondents agreed to the proposition that it is

relevant, and a considerable percentage (38.9%) of the respondents were unable to decide

while 22.2% disagreed. The mean value of this item is also 2.89, nearer to the Undecided

scale. Again, 50% of the respondents disagreed with the opposite statement i.e., the

assumption that LSA is irrelevant, but still considerable proportion, (33.3%) was unable

to say yes or no and the rest, 16.7% agreed. The mean value of this item is 3.39, nearer

to the Undecided scale. This undecidedness of the respondents’ is also the reflection the

of understanding they had about concept of LSA.

4.1.2 Students’ Conception of LSA

Data on the students’ conception were collected at two phases of the study i.e., the pre-

intervention and post-intervention phases. The purpose of gathering data on students’

conception prior to the intervention was dual: to answer RQ1 B and use it as demarcation

of a baseline for the experiment (RQ2). Like that of the instructors, data on students’

conception of LSA was gathered using interview and questionnaire.

As mentioned in sections 3.2.2 and 3.5, the pre-intervention data on the students’

conception was collected twice, labelled as CoPre1 & CoPre2, to check the stability of the

dependent behaviours at the initial stage so that valid interpretations can be drawn from

the finding of the post-intervention data analysis. That means both the interviewing and

the administration of the questionnaire were carried out twice

The two sets of data were analysed accordingly, and the results of the analysis showed

that the difference between the findings of CoPre1 and CoPre2 data was negligible.

Therefore, the result of the second round data (CoPre2) was taken as the reference for

128

comparing the results of the pre- and post intervention data. Hence, to avoid boredom of

unnecessary repetition of similar results, the findings from the first round data are briefly

summarised first and the analysis of the second round data is presented. The transcript of

the first round interview is appended as Appendix 11.

4.1.2.1 Data from the Interviews

The interview guiding questions were the same for the instructors and the students, and

were based on the same themes, i.e., the main purpose they attach to a classroom

assessment, who should be involved in it, their awareness of the concept of LSA,

appropriateness of learners’ participation in assessment scheme, its validity and perceived

advantages and/or problems.

The results of the interviews before and after the intervention are presented separately for

comparison.

4.1.2.1.1 Summary of the Finding from CoPre1 Interview

The group of students responded to the six questions related to the main themes of the

conception of LSA. In response to the first question, ‘what do you think is the main

purpose of classroom assessment?’ the respondents generally mentioned three purposes,

measuring students’ achievement to give grades and categorise students; checking the

attainment of the instructional objective; and improving learning. Among these, priority

and emphasis was given to the first one, and instances related to improving learning were

sparsely mentioned with uncertainty.

Responding to the second question, ‘whose responsibility is carrying out classroom

assessment?’ the students unanimously expressed the belief that assessment is the

129

responsibility of both the teacher and the students. However, as was observed from their

description of LSA, when asked to explain the idea of LSA, what they mentioned as the

role of the learner in assessment was not real assessment practise, but were activities like

self-reflection or self-checking as when the student compare him/her achievements to that

of classmates upon getting back test results, or contemplate on how much s/he could

memorise after reading certain text.

When they were guided to the kind of LSA which requires the involvement of the learner

in the whole process of assessment and asked whether or not it is appropriate to involve

learners in setting criteria and scoring their own work, the students disclosed two

different views. Few of them had the opinion that learners could give mark to their own

work provided that they get ready made criteria from the teacher. Majority of them,

however, completely opposed the idea of letting students to participate in setting criteria

and marking. They were probed to reason out their disagreement, and reasoned that first

of all students are selfish because they need to get good grade and second, learners cannot

understand the criteria because they have no professional skills as the teacher does.

Therefore, the students scoring cannot be accepted.

The last question was to elicit if the respondents could speculate any advantage and/or

problem that LSA has. They said that it can help to focus on errors and correct it.

Generally, the analysis show that LSA was not considered as positive practice that

contributes to their learning.

130

4.1.2.1.2 Data from Pre-intervention Interview (CoPre2)

The students’ pre-intervention interview was conducted before the training to gather data

on the existing conception of learner LSA. A group of eight students participated in the

interview. To identify one respondent from the other each respondent was assigned an

ideal number and here speakers are labelled as S1, S2, S3 . . . and S8 whenever necessary

to refer to a respondent. Similar to the analysis of the instructors’ interview, the result of

the students’ interview is presented thematically in to six sections. Note that the

ungrammatical sentences were interpreted by sensing the intended meaning of the

speakers. Where languages other than English were used, translation of the discourses is

presented here, and the original transcript is maintained in Appendix 3.

4.1.2.1.2.1 Main Purpose of Classroom Assessment

The group of students were asked their understanding and belief about the principal

purpose of classroom assessment. In their response to the question, students identified six

first level purposes that are categorised into two major or 2nd

level categories that have

two 1st level categories each; and two 1

st level category of the purposes for which the

instructors do classroom assessments. These are shown in Table 13.

The purposes perceived by the students are similar to that of the instructors, but differ in

some aspects. First, the emphasis given to ‘auditing’ and ‘describing’ categories by the

instructors is reversed here. The students gave priority to the ‘describing’ purpose

through categorising and grading. Second, the students identified one more purpose,

controlling.

131

Table 13 categories of classroom assessment purposes (students’ pre-intervention)

Category 1: Describing achievement

In the students’ responses, the describing by categorising was the most frequent and

emphasised purpose of classroom assessment. The respondents used phrases like who is

hard working and who is lazy, who scores high mark and who scores low mark, who is

dependent and who is not, to indicate their view that the instructors assess students in

classroom to put learners into categories. For example, a student explained:

... when the teacher teaching students he evaluates which or among the students

who are working hard to differentiate who is weak in his work and his study

evaluate whether they are who record the higher mark he want to know when he

is teaching who is hard working and to evaluate each from one class to another

class students... (S3).

S2 also said “that is important for the teacher because by taking assessment he can

identify students who are weak and strong ...”

2nd

level 1st level

Describing

Categorising students

grading achievement

Auditing Measuring amount of learning

Checking attainment of objectives

Controlling students

Improving learning

132

The ‘describing’ purpose through ‘grading’ was also frequently mentioned by the

respondents. After putting ‘categorizing’ as the first priority, S2 continued, “it is

important for the teacher also to give grade for the students”

Category 2: Auditing achievement

The second major category of purpose for classroom assessment perceived by the

students was ‘auditing achievement’. This includes measuring learning achievement and

checking attainment of objectives. Responding to a probe related to this theme, S4 said

“... the main purpose of assessment is nothing but evaluating or measuring performance,

the work of the students ...”, and S6 added “... as I think evaluating someone how much

the person understands the given activity or the given topic ...”

Some students viewed classroom assessment as a means of controlling students’

behaviour in and out of the classroom by making them busy. Their responses in the

following extracts indicates the students’ thinking that instructors use assessment to

control students class attendance, and give continuous assessment as a means of

surveillance of students off-class time activities. S4 explained:

... and the purpose is it helps to hold the students towards the work for example in

case of our university or Wollega university the process of teaching learning is

continuous assessment and due to this we have different tests and assignments

throughout the week due to this reason we visit library in order to answer the

assignments if no continuous assessment students don’t study always they go to

towns playing therefore in a simple way or simple manner it helps to hold the

students towards their work

S5 added

... and also the purpose of assessment is to evaluate the students depending on

their activities in the classroom and to search [check] how the student attending

133

their class during their day to day life in the classroom not only in the classroom

also in their dormitory....

The improving learning was the least frequent and the least emphasised purpose of

classroom assessment mentioned by the students. It was mentioned in only two instances

and it was mentioned as a finishing point. For example, S6 mentioned the improvement

purpose at last saying “... another, the purpose of assessment is to develop or increasing

students ability in the whole direction means speaking ability reading ability and also

writing ability in classroom ...” S5 also perceived it as a minor purpose. After explaining

the other purposes, he continued, “... in order to answer the questions which is given for

the students they share different ideas among the group to understand or to answer the

questions which their teacher gives for them”. This indicate that the respondents held the

view that classroom assessment is also carried out, though not primarily, to help learners

improve their learning

Generally, the participants’ response indicated they held the view that classroom

assessment is done for various purposes like to describe achievement, to audit amount of

learning, to control students working in and out of class, and to help learners improve

their achievement. However, they showed strong belief that describing achievement

specially to categorise students is the major reason for which teachers assess students in

their classrooms.

4.1.2.1.2.2 Who Should Do the Assessment

Regarding the question of the responsible body for classroom assessment, the students

unanimously responded that assessment should involve both the teacher and the students.

For instance, the following is response given by S2:

134

... the assessment in the classroom or during the teaching learning process is

conducted by both the students and the teacher in the classroom. For instance,

when the teacher gives a class work for example in case of writing skill the

teacher gives different assignments to students to do in the class and then after

they write whatever work given to them the students evaluate themselves through

peer editing process means they evaluate themselves in the class by sharing or

exchanging their work with each other...

S8 added “since assessment is one part of teaching learning process it must be done both

by the instructor and the students and also department.”

However, in their explanation as in the above extract, the activities they referred to, like

peer editing, are not assessment by its nature. In addition, as seen in the next two

sections, the respondents came against this view and argued that learners should not

participate in marking their own work. Therefore, this view was not based on clear

understanding of self-assessment.

4.1.2.1.2.3 Description of LSA

When students were asked what LSA means and what it involves, they could not extend

their response beyond phrases like ‘the way in which students can evaluate his or

herself’. In addition, when asked to elaborate on how that evaluation is done, they

referred to their activities like reflecting on how well they understood while reading their

note, editing one’s own paragraph, reflecting on test results, and checking one’s status by

comparing oneself with classmates. This is similar to the description given by the

instructors. For instance, when asked to give example of LSA, S8 responded “Example I

myself can write one paragraph and edit that means I evaluate myself how the

punctuation the grammar is correct that means I evaluated myself.” S7 also reflected the

same view in the following extract.

135

self-assessment means it is assessment by which we evaluate ourselves for

example if we go to library we read our exercise books or references after that we

may take some question or we may ask ourselves what I know about this question

already read it and what type of question. By this without the involvement of

others we ask ourselves and we can evaluate ourselves so this is what we call

evaluating ourselves.

This indicates that like their instructors, the students considered LSA as a simple

reflective activity that requires little involvement of students in the whole process.

4.1.2.1.2.4 Appropriateness of Involving Learners in Assessment

Process

Observing that their description of the concept of LSA is limited to the preliminary stage

(Section 4.1.2.1.2.3 above), the interviewer directed to students to the higher and more

advanced type of LSA. Then, he asked their view about whether it is appropriate to

involve learners in the whole process of assessment including setting standards and

criteria and marking their own work using the criteria. The students’ responses reflected

two different views. The first one, mentioned by only one student, was that they could

give mark to their own work if they were provided criteria by the teacher, but it is not

appropriate to let them participate in setting criteria. S4 explained it as follows.

... evaluating himself for students is good because since certain criteria is given

for her or him depending on that criteria s/he can evaluate himself but on the

designing of the criteria it is not fair to give chance for or allow students to

design criteria for evaluating

The second view was rejecting the idea at all. Other respondents argued that learners

should not participate in setting criteria as well as the scoring. The reasons they

mentioned were one, students don’t have the ability and awareness about setting criteria,

second, students are selfish or want to get the highest mark and third, students can’t

identify their errors. Expressing this second view, S5 said:

136

... for example as other students tried to raise, other than evaluating (reflecting on)

his/her achievement, it is impossible for a student to give mark to his/her own

work and to set the criteria for evaluation because it is the teacher or instructor

who should and is able to set criteria and give mark based on that criteria ....

Supporting this view, S3 added:

Now there is no experience of setting marking criteria by students and we are not

aware of it, again it is not right to do so. In addition, it can’t be fair to give mark

to ourselves. I may get a few things right and I do not focus on my error but think

as if I did all well and give the mark that I don’t deserve. Therefore it is common

and also I don’t think it is right.

Generally, the students hold the view that assessment is the part of the teachers’ job and it

is not right to involve students in it because they do not have the knowledge and

experience; they are also not expected to do as they are selfish.

4.1.2.1.2.5 Validity of LSA

The students’ view about validity of LSA was consistent with their reaction to the idea of

letting students to participate in the assessment process. As they reasoned it out above,

learners’ scoring of their own performance cannot be reliable mainly because students

compete among themselves, so everybody needs good grade. This view is reflected in the

following extension of S5’s response to the above question related to appropriateness of

learners’ involvement in assessment.

In self-assessment, as we are students and we compete among ourselves, we need

to get good grade, therefore, we all do not give low mark to ourselves; by

ignoring the marking criteria, we give high mark, we need to benefit ourselves.*

translated from A/Oromo translated from Amharic

Translated from A/Oromo

137

Other students mentioned inability to recognise their own errors for undependability of

scoring of their own work. S8 said:

... when task given to us I may do it how I know it and I consider myself this is

right I do not know my error so since I don’t know my error where my

punctuation grammar error is I don’t know so I may think this is correct this is

right so I must get due to that reason giving mark to ourselves is not fair.

These responses indicate that the students are less optimistic about the validity of their

self-scoring. this is linked to their view about teacher as a knower.

4.1.2.1.2.6 Benefits and/or Problems of LSA

The students were asked the contribution and/or problems it has other than its invalidity if

they were allowed to participate in the whole process of assessment. The students could

speculate only one benefit and one problem related to cognitive ability. They thought

that it helps them to improve their learning by helping them to focus on errors closely and

correct it. S4 explain that after self-evaluation if one finds error s/he corrects it, and this is

good because s/he never forget that area.

The disadvantage they mentioned was the

possibility of fossilising error. They thought that as students tend to overlook their weak

sides, there might not be chance of correcting error. S4 continued his explanation said if

one ignores the criteria or fails to detect error, and assumes that what s/he has done is

correct, especially in speaking and writing, it is not good.

The students’ speculations of the benefits and/or problems of self-assessment are that it

may help them to detect and correct error so that they improving their learning, but there

may also be chance of error fossilisation if students ignore the criteria and be selfish.

translated from A/Oromo

138

Nevertheless, they could not see the other many cognitive and non-cognitive advantages

of assessing themselves.

Generally, the result of the pre-training interview indicates the students had the thinking

that classroom assessment serves the purpose of describing achievement by categorising

students and grading, and this should be done by the instructor. They understood LSA in

its simplest and non-technical meaning and consequently failed to see the potential

benefit it has, and were pessimists about its validity. They were divided over the

appropriateness of being involved in the assessment scheme: some supported it and

others objected it.

4.1.3 Effect of the Training Intervention on Students’ Conception

of LSA

The training was conducted to see its effect on the students’ conception of LSA and the

validity of learners’ assessment of their English oral performance. The analysis of data on

effect of the training on the students’ conception of LSA is presented in this sections and

data on the effect of the training on validity of learners’ assessment of their English oral

performance is presented in Section 4.3

The previous section presented data from the pre-intervention interview. The next section

presents data from the post-intervention interview.

4.1.3.1 Data from Post-intervention Interview

After training in assessing their English oral performance, the same group of students in

were asked the same questions as the pre-intervention session. As done for the pre-

139

intervention interview, the analysis of these data is presented thematically. The transcript

of this interview is appended as Appendix C


The purposes of classroom assessment identified by the students during this post-training

interview were a little similar to those in the previous one, but there is a shift in the

priority they were given. The students’ responses showed that they prioritised the

improving achievement purpose, tend to ignore the auditing achievement purpose, and

dropped the control purpose as indicated in Table 14.

Category 1: Improving learning

The respondents frequently referred to the improvement purpose. They explained that

doing assignments or preparing for any sort of assessment makes them active and work

hard, interact and share ideas with each other and encourages them to search for different

reference materials. They perceived these things as a way of developing their skills and

knowledge. The following extracts from the students’ responses are indicators of this

view.

when we say assessment it is used for developing students activity when there is

assessment now assessment is continuous when there are assessment students

study their books and exercise book what they learned or what they got from the

lectures or from other indirectly help to developing their knowledge ... and there

is strong interaction between students then to develop experience to interpreting

and exchanging their idea the purpose of assessment in general is the main one is

to develop students’ knowledge (S1).

In S2’s response there is a statement: “The main purpose of assessment is it makes the

students active enough and also makes students search different references...”

140

In addition, they perceived that the feedback they get from assessment leads them

to work hard to improve their mark in subsequent assessments. S4 said “... when

you see your mark is less or not good as your classmate you work hard to get

more in the next time

Table 14 Category of purpose of classroom assessment (students’ post-intervention

interview)

Category 2: Describing achievement

The respondents also reflected the view that giving grade and identifying weak and

strong students as the other purpose of assessment. S3, after mentioning that the main

purpose of classroom assessment is improving learners’ ability, continued “...the other

purposes are also to give grade to see weak and strong students to give feedback these are

the main purposes of assessment.”

The students had also mention measuring learning as another purpose of classroom

assessment, but this was observed in only one instance. S3, after explaining the other

purposes, he continued, “.... and also the teacher knows whether the students get the knowledge

and understand the topic he teaches by giving different assessments. The scarcity of the instances

related to the measuring purpose shows the least priority given to it by the respondents.

2nd

level 1st level

improving

motivating

Getting feedback

Getting help

describing

Categorising

grading

auditing Measuring amount of learning

141

The students’ responses to the question about the main purpose of classroom assessment

generally indicate that the students have got the thinking that classroom assessment is

primarily carried out to improve students’ learning and the others like grading,

identifying students, are the secondary purpose of the teacher.

4.1.3.1.2 Who Should Do the Classroom Assessment

Responding to the questions directed at eliciting their view about who is responsible to do

the classroom assessment, the respondents seemed to have one clear-cut answer: both the

teacher and the students. S5 responded to the question “...as you said who should do the

assessment the responsibility to do the assessment is both teacher and students or both the

instructor and the students.” and S3 added “...your question is who should do the

assessment and my answer is the assessment should be done by both the teacher and the

students.”

The respondents were asked to elaborate their answers, to explain how students can

participate in assessment. S5 explained: “In the assessment the students can discuss with

the teacher and creates some criteria for doing that assessment and depending on those

criteria students also score their own work or their friends work ...”

This response indicates that unlike the pre-training interview, the students’ belief that

classroom assessment is a shared responsibility of both the teacher and the students is

with the awareness of the kind of assessment that fully involve learners in the process.

This is also confirmed in their description of LSA as seen in the next section.

142


In the same way they answered the question related to the above theme, where the

responsibility of assessment resides, the interview group unanimously described LSA as

an activity of evaluating one’s performance by participating in the whole process of

assessment including setting criteria and scoring one’s work. The following S3’s

description of LSA is an example indicator of their concept about what self-assessment is

and what it entails.

self-assessment is nothing but the way you evaluate your own performance

depending on the designed criteria by both the teacher and the students first by

participating in the class discussion with the teacher to design criteria and doing

the assignment or activity in the class or at dorm and marking for yourself for

example last time when we learned self-assessment we participated by designing

criteria and giving mark to our own presentation. This is self assessment.

To add one more example of the description given by S7

self-assessment is to evaluate ourselves how we did something or to identify

capacity of doing that activity to determine our knowledge identify our error good

or bad and self-assessment should be taken by individuals from the designing of

criteria by discussing in class and giving mark for my own performance.

The students’ responses to the questions directed at eliciting students’ understanding of

the concept of LSA indicated that the respondents’ understood LSA as a mode of

assessment in which the learner participate in and contribute to the development of the

criteria, and score his/her own performance using the criteria. This indicates that they

have perceived the advanced type of LSA which involves learners in the complete cycle

of the process.

143

4.1.3.1.4 Appropriateness of Involving Learners in Assessment Process

Based on their description of LSA, the group of interviewee was asked to comment and

express their views on the appropriateness of letting students to participate in the

assessment process at all. The students’ responses reflected two different views. The first

one was that it is appropriate to involve the students in both setting criteria and scoring

their own work. S7 responded to the question:

I think to evaluate themselves the students should participate to make criteria to

which they do in the future time or the students should be involved in setting

criteria which is used to evaluate what they are going to do because it helps him to

know that criteria and work hard to do as the criteria is needed. I also support that

is good appropriate for students to give mark depending on the criteria designed

by the teacher and student because they follow that criteria and cannot cheat the

teacher by giving high mark

However, this view was accompanied by cautionary note that students must have

awareness about the purpose of assessment and ability to set criteria and marking. In the

following two extracts, while supporting the appropriateness of learners’ participation in

the process, S5 related the training experience they had had and aired his concern about

the need of creating awareness before letting students to participate in the process.

I think setting criteria and giving mark based on the set criteria is not appropriate

because students don’t know how to set a criteria or to evaluate their work

because students have no awareness about criteria or self-assessment last week we

have learned about setting criteria about self-assessment now it is good for us to

give mark for ourselves because we know the advantage and disadvantage. If they

know or have awareness about setting criteria and giving mark for themselves it is

possible and it is appropriate it is acceptable but one thing behind that if they

don’t have awareness about setting criteria and giving mark it is problem

The second view supports letting students participate in designing criteria, but rejecting

the idea of students scoring their own performance. Other respondents argued that it is

144

possible to set criteria under the guidance of the teacher, but it is unlikely that many

students score their work honestly. S3 observed:

my idea is opposite from other and my answer is yes. Students should participate

in setting criteria for evaluation here it is possible to avoid bias the teacher also

help and give direction to set the appropriate criteria but it is not fair for the

students to give mark for themselves because some students can be honest but

some students may not be honest they wish to get good grade which is not

according to their ability and knowledge

Generally, the respondents seem to have the opinion that it is appropriate and necessary

to involve students in the process of assessment, but learners should have at least a

knowhow of the issues related to LSA. Nevertheless, there are respondents who are,

irrespective of the training, less optimistic about the learners scoring their own

performance honestly. This is also reflected in the discussion point related to validity of

LSA.


As discussed above in relation to the issue of appropriateness of students’ involvement in

assessment, the students’ responses indicate that there are different feelings about the

validity of LSA. Some of the group members had the feeling that the students’ marking

of their own work can be valid if the students have the knowledge and practice of using

the criteria. Strengthening his belief about the appropriateness of students’ participation,

S7 expressed the view that students scoring can be valid saying “... I also support that is

good appropriate for students to give mark depending on the criteria designed by the teacher and

student because they follow that criteria and cannot cheat the teacher by giving high mark.

However, others expressed their doubt that students would not be honest in scoring their

own work. As S3 commented, they just need to get grades that they do not deserve. S5

145

also repeated similar view saying, “... other one is some students may be selfish or make

themselves get good mark not depending on that criteria.”

These responses indicate that the subjects’ belief about validity of LSA is mixed. Though

some of the respondents held the view that students can take responsibility of assessing

themselves if they get awareness and practices, some others remained sceptical about it.

4.1.3.1.6 Benefits and/or Problems of LSA

In this post-training interview, the respondents could mention more advantages in doing

self-assessment than they did in the pre-training interview session. Here they mentioned

two benefits related to cognitive ability and a number of benefits related to non-cognitive

ability as listed in the table blow.

Table 15 Benefits of LSA (learners' post)

cognitive

improve the language skills

develop skill of assessing

non-cognitive

independence

Intrinsic motivation

Planning and executing

commitment

confidence

minimise complaints

responsibility

146

The students frequently mention the role of LSA in improving learning throughout the

discussion. They saw its benefits in helping them to identify their errors weaknesses and

to improve it. For instance, S4 explained his experience of the training and concluded “...

setting criteria and giving mark for their performance is crucial to understand their

weakness and improve their knowledge. It help us to correct the wrong grammar, the

vocabulary of speaking and also how to correct writing problems.” The other benefit the

students perceived in the cognitive domain was the development of their skill of

assessing. They believed that assessing themselves can also develop their skill of

assessing their students when they become teachers. S3, after explaining other benefits,

continued:

Again, when we go the teaching profession for example we become teacher we

can teach in high schools and we must evaluate the students. If I don’t learn how

to make criteria and mark I can’t evaluate my students so it has opportunity to

learn how to assess students

The students also recognised the non-cognitive skills that are initiated and or improved in

the process of self-assessment. The following response by S2 indicates that self-

assessment leads him to planning and determination to accomplish the plan

independently and thereby become confident.

I say it have many advantage when you discuss about the criteria we learn we

know what we must do at the end the last objectives of the topic or the course so I

know what must I do which book I must read or I ask able students to fulfil that

criteria that objectives after I give mark for myself using the criteria, I can check

where is my problem my error so I try to correct it for the next time by this

process my speaking ability or writing ability develop and improve so I have self

confidence

Other contributions of self-assessment to development of non-cognitive aspects like

intrinsic motivation and trusting instructor’s mark were also mentioned as in S6’s

147

response. He clearly stated that just participating in assessment by itself creates happy

feeling (motivation) and even if one cannot self-assess (failed to use the criteria) can trust

the marking and grading of the teacher.

when you participate in self assessment it is good I became happy because I don’t

see this kind of teaching learning process another advantage is when the teacher

give me low mark I am not angry because we know the criteria and I may give

wrong mark not following the criteria but the teacher depend on the criteria so I

accept

The students also expressed the experiences they derived from the training and could see

the all rounded potential benefits of participating in self-assessment even if they could

not assess themselves accurately. S4 related his experience of participating in this study as

follows.

... For example, I don’t have seen any such activity before. After you asked to do

starting that research I saw many things, for example, we participate in some

activity and after that we give mark for ourselves I learned many things from this

how the criteria is already set depending on the criteria when I consider my

performance I considered myself where is my lack where is my strength where is

my weakness. In that case now I could get many ability and learn many things

from this through process I hope I will change it due to this reason it has many

advantages. If I don’t did this activities I don’t know this criteria and how I can

improve my weakness. Now I get self-confidence. Due to that reason the students

setting criteria and giving mark for their performance is crucial to improve their

knowledge.

Concerning the downside of LSA, the students repeated the problem of possibility of

error fossilization they mentioned during the pre training interview. For example S8

expressed her idea that if a student fails to catch his/her own error or overlook it, there

would be no chance of correcting it. In addition, the students observed that if self-

assessment is not valid, it is irrelevant. S5 commented that a mark that does not correctly

148

describe our performance does not help to improve our learning, i.e., if students do not

assess themselves genuinely they cannot learn. In his words:

If we make bias we cannot know our weak side and strong side. If we neglect

[overcome] the sense of selfishness we can evaluate ourselves depending on our

work. If I give simply high mark to get A or B for myself that is unnecessary it is

beyond my capacity I should learn from my mistakes. If I give something

equivalent to my capacity I also try to learn from the mistakes and improve my

capacity

One more problem the students observed was related to time. They felt that it is ‘time

consuming’. S4 said “The disadvantage is if students have many classes in the week they

have no time to look at the video and give mark for themselves.”

To sum up, in this post intervention interview the respondents generally seemed to have

favourable conception about LSA. They perceived classroom assessment as having

primarily the purpose of improving learning and it is a job to be shared between and

among the students and the teacher. They also described LSA in its advanced and

participatory sense. They reflected the belief that it is appropriate and necessary to put

learners in the whole process of assessment including giving marks to their own work.

Their awareness of its role in improving students’ learning was also improved when

compared to the pre-intervention interview response, but they mentioned few cognitive

benefits. However, they were divided over the validity of the marks provided by the

students. Some remained pessimistic concerning the learners’ honesty. Regarding its

downside, they perceived two problems: probability of overlooking errors that is

connected to its validity and time consuming on the part of the students.

149

4.1.3.2 Data from Students Questionnaires

As mentioned in Section 3.4.2 above, the students’ and the instructors’ questionnaire are

the same in their content and form, but some statements in the students’ questionnaire

were worded differently in an attempt to make the language easy for the students. Parallel

to the interview, the students’ questionnaire was administered before the intervention and

after the training so that the results could be compared to see the effect of the training on

their responses.

To make the comparison easier and convenient, and to reduce the number of tables used

to display the data so that readers would not be bored with referring to the unnecessarily

many tables, the results of a cluster of statements for both the pre- and post intervention

are presented together in one table. Again, to make the size of the tables manageable, the

5-point scales were reduced to three: the Strongly Agree (SA) and Agree (A) scales were

combined and assigned the value 1, the Undecided scale was assigned 2 and the Disagree

and Strongly Disagree were assigned 3.

The pre-intervention questionnaire was distributed to 46 students in a classroom and all

the papers were collected back. However, three papers were discarded because they were

not filled out properly. The post intervention questionnaire was distributed to and

collected from 44 students and all were used. Therefore, 43 papers for the pre-

intervention and 44 papers for post intervention were analysed. The statements were

analysed in theme based six clusters as presented is subsequent sections.

150


The first theme of this questionnaire is the purpose that students attach to classroom

assessments. As done in analysing the instructors’ questionnaire, the statements in this

theme are put into two sub categories: describing achievement and improving

achievement. The first sub-category includes four statements that relate the purpose of

classroom assessment to describing the learners learning outcomes, and the second

category includes a cluster of three statements that relate classroom assessment to

improving students’ achievement. The results are presented in Tables 16 and 17 below.

In Table 16, the students’ responses to the group of statements related to purpose of

classroom assessment in the pre-intervention questionnaire show that most of the

respondents ( more than 72.1%) agreed to all of the four statements, and few respondents

(less than 11.6 % and less) disagreed. The rest (16.3% and less) were undecided. In

addition, the mean values of all the four items range from 1.14 to 1.40 approximating the

value that corresponds to agreement scale. This indicates that the students had the belief

that instructors do classroom assessments primarily to describe learners’ learning

outcomes.

In their response to the same group of statements after the intervention, majority of the

respondents (68.2% and above) disagreed to all the four statements, 22.7% and less

agreed while l8.2% and less remained undecided. In addition, the mean values for all the

statements are 2.45 and greater, in between the undecided and disagreement scale. This

indicates that more than 68% of the respondents do think that the primary purpose of

classroom assessment is not describing achievement.

151

Comparison of the students’ pre-intervention and post intervention responses indicates

that while majority of the students had the belief that describing the students’

achievement is the main purpose of classroom assessment, this view was changed in their

response to the post intervention questionnaire.

Table 16 Classroom assessment for describing learners' achievement

Item

No.

Statements

The main

purpose of

classroom

assessment is

...

Pre-intervention

Post-intervention

To

tal

Mea

n

Extent of agreement

Tota

l

tota

l M

ean

med

ian

Extent of agreement

1 % 23 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %

1

to check

whether or not

students have

mastered what

they have

learned

36 83.7 5 11.6 2 4.7 43 1.21 9 20.5 4 9.1 31 70.5 44 2.5

2

indentifying

the strengths

and weakness

of the learners

31 72.1 7 16.3 5 11.6 43 1.40 8 18.2 5 11.4 31 70.5 44 2.52

7

grading and

categorising

students

39 90.7 2 4.7 2 4.7 43 1.14 4

9.1

8

18.2

.

32 72.7 44 2.64

9

checking

whether or not

the course

objectives are

achieved

34 79.1 4 9.3 5 11.6 43 1.33 10 22.7 4 9.1 30 68.2 44 2.45

Table 17 indicates that in their response to the pre-intervention questionnaire the

percentage of the respondents agreed to all the three statements that relate purpose of

classroom assessment to improving learning outcomes ranges from 73.8% to 85.7. The

152

mean values also range from 1.17 to 1.40 nearer to the agreement scale. This indicates

that the students had the view that teachers do classroom assessment to help learners

improve their achievements.

Table 17 Classroom assessment for improving learning

Item

No

.

Statements

The main

purpose of

classroom

assessment is ...

Pre-intervention

Post-intervention

T

ota

l

M

ean Extent of agreement

T

ota

l

tota

l

Mea

n

med

ian

Extent of agreement

1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %

3 helping learners

to improve

their learning

36 85.7 5 11.9 1 2.4 42 1.17 41 93.2 3 6.8 0 0 44 1.07

5 providing

feedback to

students about

their

performance

33 76.7 6 14 4 9.3 43 1.33 43 97.7 1 2.3 0 0 44 1.02

10 providing

information for

the teacher on

the way s/he

teaches

31 73.8 5 11.9 6 14.3 42 1.40 38 88.4 4 9.3 1 2.3 43 1.14

The post intervention data also show that majority of the students agreed to all of the

same statements. Moreover, the percentage of the respondents who agreed to the

statements increased and the mean values drew closer to the agreement scale. At this

time, the percentage of the agreement ranges from 88.4 to 97.7, and the mean values are

between 1.02 and 1.14.

Comparison of the result of pre-intervention data on Table 16 and 17 indicates that most

of the respondents agreed with the two contrasting propositions, i.e., classroom

153

assessment is done primarily for describing learners’ achievement and for improving

learning. This indicates that the students had not had a clear awareness on the main

reason for which the teachers carry out classroom assessment; they did not differentiate

between the contrary suppositions about the main purpose of classroom assessment. This

failure to make distinction between the primary and secondary purposes of classroom

assessment was cleared in the data after the training. Their responses to the post-

intervention questionnaire show majority of the students’ disagreed with the propositions

supporting the describing purpose, and strengthened their degree of agreement with the

improving purpose.

Therefore, from the analysis of the data in Tables 16 and 17, it is possible to see that there

is a change in the students’ thinking about the main purpose of classroom assessment

after the intervention; it moved away from describing to improving. Thus, it can be said

that the training has had an effect on the students’ view regarding the main purpose of

classroom assessment.

4.1.3.2.2 Whether Students should be Involved in the Assessment Scheme

The next cluster of questions is related to power relationship between students and

teachers regarding classroom assessment. Before the intervention, in response to the four

statements related to the belief about who should do the assessment, the respondents

exhibited two self-contradicting views. As Table 18 shows, 76.7% and 90.5% of the

respondents agreed respectively to items 4 and 11 that suppose learners to be involved in

assessing themselves. Again, 65.1% and 67.4 of the respondents respectively agreed to

the items 14 and 20 that suppose an idea contradicting to the former. In addition the

mean values for the four statements range from 1.14 to 1.42, approximating the

154

agreement scale. This confusion can be related to their understanding about the concept

of LSA as seen in Section 4.1.3.2.3 below.

Table 18 Appropriateness of learners' involvement in assessment process

Item

No

.

Statements

Pre-intervention Post-intervention

To

tal

Mea

n Extent of agreement

To

tal

tota

l M

ean

med

ian

Extent of agreement

1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %

4 Students should

participate in

assessing their

own work

33 76.7 5 11.6 5 11.6 43 1.35 43 100 0

0 0 0 44 1

11 One of the

students’ role in

the teaching

learning process

is participating in

the whole process

of assessment

38 90.5 2 4.8 2 4.8 42 1.14 43 100 0

0 0 0 43 1

14 It’s the lecturer’s

job to evaluate

students’ work

28 65.1 12 27.9 3 7 43 1.42 0 0 4 9.3 39 90.7 43 2.91

20 I consider the real

assessment to be

assessment that is

done by the

teacher

29 67.4 10 23.3 4 9.3 43 1.42 7 15.9 12 27.3 25 56.8 44 2.41

In their response to the post intervention questionnaire, the respondents cleared this

confusion by agreeing to the proposition that students should participate in assessment

process, and disagreeing to the opposite proposition. The post-training data indicates that

all of the respondents agreed with items 4 and 11, and majority, 90.7% and 56.8%,

disagreed to items 14 and 20 respectively. But the percentages of the abstainers and those

who disagreed (43.2%) also and indicates that still there are considerable percent of

155

respondents who, regardless of the training, hold the view that real assessment is that of

the instructor.


The other theme is related to the description of the concept of LSA itself. The students

responded to a cluster three of statements that describe LSA in its different forms. The

data from the pre-training questionnaire in Table 19 indicates that most of the

respondents, 86% and 83.7%, agreed to items 6 and 12 respectively, which give the

simplest form of LSA that is related to the technical knowledge level. The mean values of

these items are 1.23 and 1.21. In their response to item 8 which describe LSA in its

relatively advanced and related to communicative and interpretive level, majority of the

respondents neither agreed nor disagreed, 51.2% remained undecided, while 34.1%

agreed and 14.6% disagreed. The mean value for this item is 1.8 that approaches 2, the

scale for ‘UD’. This implies that they understand LSA in the simplest form that is related

to the technical knowledge level. This conforms to their response to the pre-intervention

interview.

The post-training data indicates that there are changes in the patterns of the learners’

responses to this group of statements. Most of them, 88.4% and 93%, disagreed to the

lowest and technical level description of LSA in items 6 and 12 respectively, with mean

values 2.84 and 2.88 nearing to the scale for disagreement; and 95.5% of the respondents

agreed to the statement in item 8 which gives the relatively sophisticated description

related to communicative and interpretive level. The mean value is also 1.07. This

indicates that the training helped them to advance their understanding of the concept of

LSA.

156

Table 19 Description of LSA

Item

No. Statements

Learners’ self-

assessment

means ...


Tota

l

Mea


Tota

l

tota

l

Mea

n

med

ian Extent of agreement

1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %

6 students marking

their own test or

assignment using

answer keys

provided by the

instructor

37 86 2 4.7 4 9.3 43 1.23 2 4.7 3 7 38 88.4 43 2.84

8 participating in the

process of

developing criteria

and standards and

then marking

one’s own

performance

14 34.1 21 51.2 6 14.6 41 1.8 42 95.5 1 2.3 1 2.3 44 1.07

12 checking how well

you understood a

topic while you

are learning or

studying a subject

36 83.7 5 11.6 2 4.7 43 1.21 2 4.7 1 2.3 40 93 43 2.88


The following group of three statements sought the students’ degree of agreement to the

propositions related to the validity of their self-assessment before and after the training

on LSA of oral performance. As Table 20 below shows, in their response to the pre-

intervention questionnaire majority of the respondents rejected the view that LSA would

be valid. The data shows that 58.1% of the students disagreed to the propositions that

students would be honest in assessing themselves, item 22; and considerable percentage

of the respondents (30.2) were unable to decide. The mean value of this item is also 2.47,

157

half way between the scales for Undecided and Disagree. In addition, 79.1% disagreed to

item 26 that states LSA could count to students’ final grade.

Table 20 Validity of LSA

Moreover, 81.4% of the respondents showed their agreement to the statement in item 23

which states that students would not understand the assessment criteria. This indicates

that majority of the students had the belief that LSA cannot be valid.

The post intervention data shows minor changes in the patterns of the subjects’ response

to the three items. Majority (68.2%) of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed to

item 22 that supposes students are honest; and less than half (45.5%) agreed to item 26

that states LSA can go into the students’ final grade while the rest were undecided or

disagreed. However, about 84% disagreed to item 23 which states that students can’t

Item

No.

Statements


Tota

l

Mea


Tota

l

tota

l

Mea

n

med


1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %

22 Students

assess their

own

performance

honestly

5 11.6 13 30.2 25 58.1 43 2.47 5 11.4 30 68.2 9 20.5 44 2.09

23 It would be

difficult for

students to

understand the

assessment

criteria

35 81.4 4 9.3 4 9.3 43 1.28 4 9.1 3 6.8 37 84.1 44 2.75


assessment can

count to the

final grade

1 2.3 8 18.6 34 79.1 43 2.77 20 45.5 18 40.9 6 13.6 44 1.68

158

understand the marking criteria. The mean values of these items are 2.09, 1.68 and 2.75

respectively.

This result implies that after the intervention the subjects accepted the propositions that

students can understand the assessment criteria, but were divided over the idea that the

mark would go into the final grade. This is because they did not change their beliefs that

students cannot be honest in marking their own performance; they are still not confident

to say students can be honest. The percentage of the respondents who could not decide on

and/or disagreed to the proposition that the mark from LSA can count to final grade is

greater than the respondents who agreed (54.5). Thus, the effect of the training on this

theme can be said minimal.

4.1.3.2.2 Benefits and/or Problems of LSA

There are two subcategories in this theme. The first contains a group of five statements

related to propositions about the cognitive and meta-cognitive benefits and the second

contains five statements about non-cognitive benefits. The data on these subcategories

are presented in Tables 21 and 22 respectively.

As Table 21 shows, in the pre-intervention questionnaire, most of the respondents agreed

to all the four items that mention: recognizing errors easily (item13), improving language

skills and knowledge (item16), understanding the quality of performance expected of

them (item 21), and thinking what and how much to do to achieve the learning objectives

(item 29) as the contribution of LSA to cognitive development in some way.

159

Table 21 Cognitive benefits of LSA

Item

No

.

Statements


To

tal

Mea


To

tal

tota

l

Mea

n

Med

ia

n

Extent of agreement

1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %

13 If I assess my own

work, I would be

able to recognize my

errors easily

33 78.6 6 14.3 3 7.1 42 1.29 42 97.7 1 2.3 0 0 43 1.02

16 Being involved in

assessment of my

own learning

outcomes helps me

to improve my

language skills and

knowledge

35 81.4 5 11.6 3 7.0 43 1.26 39 90.7 3 7 1 2.3 43 1.12

18 Assessing my own

performance has no

importance to the

improvement of my

language skills and

knowledge

1 2.3 8 18.6 34 79.1 43 2.77 1 2.3 0 0 43 97.7 44 2.95

21 Self-assessment

enables me to

understand the

quality of

performance

expected of me

36 83.7 5 11.6 2 4.7 43 1.21 41 93.2 2 4.5 1 2.3 44 1.09

29 Assessing myself

makes me think what

and how much to do

to achieve the

learning objectives

37 86 4 9.3 2 4.7 43 1.19 39 88.6 2 4.5 3 6.8 44 1.18

The percentage of the respondents agreed to these statements ranges from 78.6 to 86 with

the mean values ranging from 1.19 to 1.29. In addition, most of the respondents (79.1%)

also disagreed to the supposition that LSA has no any contribution to learning (item 18).

The mean value of this item is also 2.95 approaching 3 which is the disagreement scale.

160

This implies that the subjects view LSA as beneficial to the development of their

cognitive and non-cognitive abilities. However, these beneficial effects they identified are

not congruent with the type of LSA they identified as revealed in their description of

LSA in the pre-intervention data in Section 4.1.3.2.3 above.

The post intervention data shows result similar to the pre-intervention one. Their

responses to these items after attending the training show the subjects strong agreement

to the positive statements and strong disagreement to the negative statement. More than

88% of the students agreed to the cognitive and meta-cognitive benefits mentioned in

items 13, 16, 21 and 29. Moreover, 97.7% of the respondents disagreed to item 18 that

does not consider any benefit of LSA, This implies that the subjects hold the view that

the practice of self-assessment contributes to the development of their cognitive and

meta-cognitive ability. This time, as the respondents improved their understanding of the

concept of LSA to the sophisticated level as indicated in the post intervention data in

Sections 4.1.3.1.3 above, it is possible to say that this view emerged out of their clear

consciousness of the advanced type of LSA they gained from the training.

In the data from the pre-intervention questionnaire displayed in Table 22, the respondents

identified two ways by which LSA contributes to their non-cognitive aspect of learning.

Majority, 90.7% agreed to the benefit of creating feeling of responsibility (item 15) and

72.1% agreed to the benefit of creating willingness of working much and harder (item

27). The mean values of these items are 1.16 and 1.35 nearing the agreement scale.

Their response to the rest statements is not uniform. In response to the statement that

LSA minimises cheating and misbehaving (item 19), majority, but less than half (47.6%)

161

remained undecided and considerable proportion (42.9%) disagreed. In response to the

statement that LSA makes students trust instructors marking (item 24), most of the

respondents (60.5%) disagreed and substantial proportion (32.6%) remained undecided.

In addition, 55.8% of the subjects neither agreed nor disagreed to the statement that LSA

causes boredom.

Table 22 Non-cognitive Benefits of LSA

Item

No.

Statements


Tota

l

Mea

n

Extent of agreement

Tota

l

tota

l

Mea

n

med


1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %

15 Assessing my own

work makes me

feel responsible for

my learning

39 90.7 1 2.3 3 7 43 1.16 41 93.2 3 6.8 0 0 44 1.07

17 If I am to mark my

own work, I would

get bored

9 20.9 24 55.8 10 23.3 43 2.02 4 9.1 8 18.2 32 72.7 44 2.64

19 Learners’

assessing their

own work helps to

minimise cheating

and misbehaving

4 9.5 20 47.6 18 42.9 42 2.33 33 76.7 9 20.9 1 2.3 43 1.26

24 Assessing my own

work makes me

trust the

instructor’s

marking

3 7 14 32.6 26 60.5 43 2.53 4 100 0 0 0 0 44 1

27 Self assessment

makes me spend

much of my time

on studying and

working hard

31 72.1 9 20.9 3 7 43 1.35 43 100 0 0 0 0

4

3

1

162

This result generally shows the respondents did not have a clear idea about the benefits

and problems related to LSA. This could also be related to their understanding of type of

LSA; their response is more likely to come from the concept they had had about it.

In the data from post-training questionnaire, the respondents responded in a clear pattern.

High proportion (ranging from 76.7% to 100%) agreed to the positively worded

statements related to benefits of LSA, i.e., creating sense of responsibility (item 15),

minimising cheating and misbehaving (item 19), creating feeling of trust in the

instructor’s marking (item 24), and encourage spending much time on working (item 27).

The mean values of these items also range from 1.00 to 1.26 and correspond to the

agreement scale. In addition, 72.7% of the subjects disagreed to the statement that LSA

causes boredom. The mean value of this item is 2.64 approaching the disagreement scale.

This view is also in line with the concept of LSA in its advanced level that the students

could conceptualise after the training. Therefore, it could be attributed to the effect of the

training.

4.1.3.2.3 Relevance of LSA

The last theme to which the students were asked to respond was whether LSA is relevant

to the teaching learning process at all. They responded to two statements of which one is

negatively stated. Table 25 below present the pre- and post intervention data.

In the pre-intervention questionnaire, as Table 23 shows, 93% of the respondents agreed

to the proposition that LSA is an important aspect of the learning process (item 25), and

most of them (65.1%) disagreed to the statement that supposes LSA as irrelevant (item

28). This indicates that they considered LSA as the integral part of the teaching learning

163

process. However, as it is indicated elsewhere in the above sections, they were referring

to the LSA in its simplest and lowest level.

Table 23 Relevance of LSA

Item

No

.

Statements


To

tal

Mea

n

Extent of agreement

To

tal

tota

l

Mea

n

med


1 % 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 % 3 %

25 Learner’ SA is an

important part of

learning teaching

process

40 93 3 7 0 0 43 1.07 42 95.5 1 2.3 1 2.3 44 1.07


assessment is just

adding burden to

both teachers and

students

5 11.6 10 23.3 28 65.1 43 2.53 0 0 0 0 44 100 44 3.00

The data from the post-intervention questionnaire indicates that the students’ response is

similar to the former one, but with increased proportion. Almost all, 95.5% agreed to item

25 and all of them disagreed to item 28 with mean values of 1.07 and 3.00 respectively.

This shows that the respondents view LSA as the important part of their learning

activities. This time, it is possible to say they referred to the advanced type of LSA which

they derived from the training.

4.2 Validity of LSA of English Oral Performance

Data on the validity of learners’ assessment of their English oral performance was

generated using the English oral performance assessments tools: classroom oral

performance tasks and marking schemes, prior to and after the training intervention. The

164

data prior to the intervention was used to answer RQ2 and to demarcate the baseline for

the extent of validity for the experimentation.

Similar to the data on the students’ conception, the data on the validity of LSA of English

oral performance prior to the intervention was collected and analysed twice, labelled

Vpre1, and Vpre2, to get a stable baseline. The analysis showed that there was little

difference between the results of these two data. Therefore, the result of the second round

data (Vpre2) was taken as the baseline of the data on validity of the self-assessment. To

avoid unnecessary repetition of reporting the same result, summary of the statistics of the

first round data (Vpre1) is given in Table 24 and the analysis of the Vpre2 data is

presented here.

The validity of the self-assessment of oral performance was assessed by comparing

scores from instructor’s marking to that of the students’ self-marking. Therefore, the

English oral performance assessments both before and after the intervention were marked

by the students themselves and the instructor so that the validity of the marking would be

judged by comparing the two markings. The descriptive statistics (mean values) and

inferential statistics (the t-test) were computed using the IBM SPSS statistics 20 software

in analysing the data.

Table 24 Statistical summary of the first round oral performance score (Vpre1)

Students’ scoring Instructor's scoring

M SD n M SD n

7.64 .870 43 4.18 1.628 43

165

Students’ scoring (M = 7.64, SD = .870), instructor’s scoring (M = 4.18, SD =1.628),

t(42)= 11.85, P < .005 (two-tailed), mean difference = 3.46, 95% confidence interval

range 2.87 to 4. 04

The second round pre-intervention oral performance assessment (Vpre2) was administered

to all the 46 students. Among these, two students did not turn up for marking their own

performance and two other students’ marking of their own performance was discarded

because they did not follow the marking scheme correctly. Therefore, the result of 42

students was subjected to analysis. To make the comparison easier and convenient, the

result of the statistics of the pre- and post-intervention data is displayed in one table, Table

25.

As the Table shows, the descriptive statistics of the students’ scoring and the instructor’s

scoring of the pre-intervention assessment shows that the mean value of the pre

intervention students’ scoring is greater than that of the instructors’ scoring: 7.2667 >

4.9250. To see if this difference is significant, a paired-sample t-test was conducted. The

test indicated that there is statistically significant difference between the students’ scoring

(M = 7.2667, SD = .7500) and instructor’s scoring (M = 4.9250, SD = 1.6182), t (41) =

10.892, P < .005 (two-tailed). The mean difference between the scores was 2.3416 with

99% confidence interval ranging from 1.76097 to 2. 9223. The figure P < .005 (two-

tailed) indicates that the probability of attributing the difference between the mean values

to mare chance or sampling error is less than 5% and there is real difference between the

mean values. This indicates that the students overestimated their own oral performance

compared to the instructors’ scoring.

166

4.3 Effect of the Training on Validity of LSA of English Oral

performance

The post-intervention performance assessment was administered to 45 students because

one student was absent. Among these, four students’ result was discarded because their

result of the test given to see the effectiveness of the training was not satisfactory (see

Section 3.5.2). In addition, three of these students did not mark their performance.

Hence, the result of 41 students was analysed.

Table 25 Descriptive statistics of the oral performance scores (pre- and post

intervention)

The descriptive statistics of the post-intervention scores shows the mean value of the

students scoring is still greater than that of the instructors’. The paired-sample t-test

conducted to see if this difference is significant indicated that the difference between the

mean value of the students scoring (M = 6.8805, SD = .7252) and the instructors scoring

(M = 6.6073, SD = .9305), t (40) = 1.858, p > .005 (two tailed) is not significant. The

mean difference of the scores is .2731 at 95% level of confidence interval ranging from -

.12439 to .67074.


M SD n M SD n

Pre intervention 7.2667 .7500 42 4.9250 1.6182 42

Post intervention 6.8805 .7252 41 6.6073 .9305 41

167

To examine the kind and magnitude of the relationship between the students’ self-

marking and the instructor’s scoring of the performance assessment, and to see whether

or not the intervention affected the relationship, Pearson product-moment correlation was

run for both the pre- and post intervention pairs of scores using the SPSS. The statistics

showed there was weak, positive correlation between the instructor’s and the students’

self-scoring of the performance before the intervention, r = .276, n = 42, p < .05 (2-

tailed). The correlation of the two sets of scores after the intervention was found to be

medium positive: r = .334, n = 41, p < .01 (2-tailed).

This result shows that there was a real difference that can’t be attributed to chance or

sampling errors between the students’ self marking and the instructor’s marking of the

students’ performance before the training, and the correlation was also weak, implying

the less validity of the students self marking. After the intervention, though there is still

difference between the students’ and the instructor’s scoring, the gap between the means

of the scores decreased to the non-significant level, and the correlation was also improved

to medium implying that the training improved the students’ scoring of their own work.

4.4 Summary of the findings from the Post Intervention Data

from the Non-Experiment Group

As discussed in section 3.2.2, data on the students’ conception of LSA and the validity of

LSA of the oral performance were collected from a non-experiment group of students

through group interview and English oral performance assessment after the analysis of

the post-intervention data to check the internal validity of the single-group quasi-

experiment,. Here, non-experimental group refers to a class of 15 students who were

similar to the subject of the study in every aspect. Analysis of these data indicated that

168

the findings from these data are almost the same to findings from the pre-intervention

data. To avoid redundancies in describing and explaining similar results again that would

bore the reader, the findings of these data are summarised here and the transcript of the

interview is put in Appendix 12.

4.4.1 Summary of Result of the interview

This interview was conducted with a group of five volunteer students. The analysis of

this interview indicated that the students had less positive conception of LSA. First, they

had the understanding that the main purpose of classroom assessment is giving grade and

categorising students, and assessment should be carried out by both the teacher and the

students. However, they described LSA in its simplistic form like self-correction using

answer key prepared by the teacher; therefore, the role of the learner in assessment as it

was perceived by the respondents does not conform with basic concept of LSA. Next,

when the students were briefed on what LSA ‘proper’ entails and asked their opinion

about whether or not it is appropriate that students participate in developing the standard

and criteria of assessment scoring of their own performance, they objected the idea and

expressed the view that students are not in a position to set criteria and score their own

work because they do not have the skill of assessment and also cannot be honest as

everyone needs to get the highest grade if possible. Lastly, when they were asked to

speculate if LSA has any advantage and/or problem, they could see that it helps to find

and correct errors, and repeated the problem of dishonesty.

When compared to the findings from the pre- and post intervention interviews, this result

is similar to the previous finding from the two rounds of interview prior to the

intervention.

169

4.4.2 Summary of the result of the data from oral performance

assessment (non-experiment group)

The oral performance assessment was administered to all of the 15 students in the class,

but the scoring of two students was discarded because they did not use the making

scheme properly. Therefore, the result of 13 students was analysed and summarised here.

Table 26 Descriptive statistics of the oral performance assessment scores of the non-

experiment group


M SD n M SD n

7.123 .724 13 5.473 1.121 13

The shows the mean value of the students scoring is greater than that of the instructors,

7.123 > 5.473; and the paired-sample t-test indicated that the difference between the

scoring of the students (M = 7.123, SD = .724) and the instructors scoring (M = 5.473,

SD = 1.121), t (12) = 5.251, P < .005 (two-tailed) is significant. The mean difference of

the scores is 1.650 at 95% level of confidence interval ranging from .965 to 2. 335.

This result shows that the students the difference between the students’ and the

instructor’s scoring is statistically significant implying that the students scoring is less

valid that that of the instructor. This result is also conforms to the results of the data from

oral performance assessment collected in two rounds before the intervention.

170

4.5 Discussions of the Findings

The preceding sections of this chapter presented analysis of the data. This section

discusses the results. The discussion focuses on merging the findings from the qualitative

and the quantitative data, looking relationship between the data from the students and the

instructors and, where available, relationship of the findings with other research. The

discussions of the findings are presented along the constructs studied following the

research questions that framed the study. First the findings related to conceptions are

discussed, followed by findings of the validity study. Then the effect of training on both

constructs is explained.

4.5.1 Conception of LSA

Conception of LSA was studied from both the instructors’ and the students’ perspectives.

The research questions leading this construct are:

1. What is the EFL instructors’ conception of learners’ self-assessment? (RQ1. A)

2. What is the university EFL students’ conception of learners’ self-assessment?

(RQ1 B)

To be able to access conceptions held by the two groups, interviews were used as the

main instrument and questionnaires came in as a complementary instrument. Both of the

instruments are built around six major themes related to knowledge and beliefs about

LSA. These include the main purpose of classroom assessment, whose responsibility is to

do the assessment, description of LSA, its validity, its contribution to learning, and its

relevance. The instructors’ conception is discussed first and the students’ conceptions

follow.

171

4.5.1.1 The Instructors’ Conception of LSA

Results of the analysis are discussed along the themes focused on. The analysis of the

questionnaire data indicates that subjects agreed to the all items they found in the list;

they did not differentiate between the subcategories of describing achievement and

improving learning as the primary or secondary purposes of classroom assessment.

However, the analysis of the interview indicates that the instructors identified auditing

and describing learners’ achievement as the prior purpose of classroom assessment, and

mentioned improvement as peripheral consequence. This discrepancy between the

findings from the interview and questionnaire is indicator of the subjects’ less clear

understanding about purposes of classroom assessment. Nonetheless, the probing

questions during the interview helped to identify the kind of belief they had about

purpose of classroom assessment.

Taking the result of the interview for granted, such thinking of the instructors is

consistent with findings in some studies and inconsistent with some others. For example,

in Harris and Brown’s (2008) study of New Zealand primary and secondary school

teachers’ conceptions of the purpose of assessment, it is reported that the teachers

identified seven categories of description. Based on the degree of importance perceived

by the respondents, descriptions related to improvement are ranked 4th

and below, the

others like grading and reporting being at the top. However, in Shing and Fai’s (2007)

study of conception about assessment of Mainland China college lecturers in a

vocational and technical institute showed their highest agreement of all dimensions to

proposition that assessment improves quality of teaching and student learning.

172

With respect to the belief about where the responsibility of classroom assessment lies, the

analysis of both the interview and the questionnaire indicated that instructors assigned the

responsibility of assessment exclusively to the teacher. Even, few of them who think that

it should be shared by learners were not referring to the full-fledged involvement of the

learners, as it is evident from their description of LSA in the interview and the

questionnaire as well. Though there is no empirical literature on such cases, such view of

the instructors is clearly the reflection of one of the causes of teachers’ perception of LSA

aired in the conceptual literature. Instructors who came through educational culture where

teachers exercise official authority and have fixed picture of their role are very reluctant

to accept the idea that learners should be permitted to participate in their own assessment

and to devolve or share with the students any aspect of their responsibility in assessment

(Smith, 2000; Tudor, 1996).

The instructors defined LSA as some intentional or unintentional learners’ activities like

self-checking and self-reflections as when they get back their test papers and see how

well or bad they have done. This is the technical knowledge level of self-assessment that

does not require the participation of learners in the process of identifying standards and

setting and using criteria. Such teachers’ thinking about LSA can be associated with

Tan’s (2007) study in which academics identified three types of LSA of which the first

one is teacher-driven self-assessment. It is the first type of self-assessment as classified

by Boud and Brew (1995) and is characterised by teacher’s control. Less sophisticated

conception of LSA given by the instructors is also the reflection of the inconsistent and

sometimes misleading meaning of LSA used in the literature (Boud & Falchikov, 1989;

Boud & Brew, 1995).

173

Concerning the appropriateness and validity of LSA, the analysis of the interview showed

that the instructors reflected mixed and even self-contradictory views; while some seem

to support partial involvement, but not whole-heartedly, others seem to allow whole

involvement, and others opposed it at all. In addition, when it comes to the acceptability

of their self-marking, all were pessimistic and frequently mention learners’ inability and

dishonesty. One instructor commented that students cannot be honest because in the

country, the criterion for selection for job is what is on paper, grade, not the knowledge

and competencies they actually developed in educational and training institutes. This

inconsistent and self-contradictory feeling of the instructors is also corroborated by result

from the questionnaire data in which they supported the involvement of the learners, but

doubted the validity of their own marking.

As Brown and Lake (2006:3) observed, it is possible for individuals to “simultaneously

hold multiple, and possibly even contradictory, conceptions of a phenomenon without

being disturbed by such contradiction”. Here also it seems to reflect a conflict between

personal ideology, for example reluctance to lose domination in the area of assessment,

that could have developed out of experience from contextual elements and a just

intruding feeling of being labelled ‘traditional thinker’. This is because their rejection of

the involvement of the learners in setting criteria as well as marking did not come from

practical valid knowledge and professional experience, as they were not practicing it; it

comes from their educational culture. As Brown with Bull and Pendlebury (1997:173)

noted, beneath such concerns lie their expectation of the “lecturer’s role” and fear of

“giving up some of their power”

174

In relation to the last theme, the contribution of LSA to the teaching learning perceived

by the instructors was insufficient. The result of the questionnaire was also not supported

by the interview. In the questionnaire, they agreed to all the items that stated the

cognitive benefits, but could not identify the non-cognitive benefits clearly. Nevertheless,

this was not confirmed by the interview. In the interview, focusing attention on errors

was the only cognitive benefits they mentioned; and confidence, responsibility,

commitment, and transparency were the non-cognitive benefits. This indicates the

inadequacy of the instructors’ awareness of the contribution that LSA has to students’

cognitive development.

Generally, the subjects’ belief system about LSA is more or less consistent and

interrelated to each other along all the thematic categories focused on. The findings from

the interview in most cases are corroborated by the questionnaire. In addition, these

results also support the findings reported in empirical literature and the ideas and

concerns reflected in the conceptual writings.

4.5.1.2 The Students’ Conception of LSA before the intervention

The findings from the analysis of the pre-intervention interview and the questionnaire

data on the students’ conception of LSA are similar to that of the instructors’ discussed

above in all the thematic categories. Like the instructors, the students did not differentiate

between the main and peripheral purposes of classroom assessment in the questionnaire

and the analysis of the interview data show that the students attributed classroom

assessment to measuring achievement and controlling students’ behaviour that are

generally put as describing achievement. They perceived improving learning as the

175

peripheral purpose for which teachers assess students in classrooms. This is similar to the

view of the instructors discussed above.

Assuming the result of the interview data, this finding is consistent with some other

similar studies. For example, Brown & Hirschfeld (2008) reported Zeidner’s (1992) study

of Israeli junior and senior high school students’ perception of purpose of classroom

assessment. This study showed that among the four purposes of assessment (summarising

student achievement, arousing student interest and motivation, evaluating quality of

teaching, and administrative purposes) offered to them, the students showed strong

perception of assessment as summarising students’ achievement than as improving

motivation or behaviour.

Regarding their understanding of the concept of LSA, the students’ description of LSA is

the same to that of their instructors: they related the technical knowledge level of self-

assessment. In both the interview and the questionnaire data, their description includes,

for example, actions of comparing one’s test result with that of a classmate. Such

perception of LSA is similar to what Tan, Teo and Ng (2011) identified as compliant self-

assessment that involves little, if at all any, understanding or emphasis on the standards

and criteria to judge their own learning against.

Such understanding of the concept of LSA also lead them to hold self-contradictory

views about the responsible party to do assessment and whether or not students should be

involved in setting criteria and marking of their own work. Having the simplest form of

self-assessment in mind, they unanimously agreed that assessment should be a joint

venture of the teacher and the students. When guided to the advanced level of LSA,

176

however, were divided over the view students should be involved in deciding on criteria

and marking, while some supported partial involvement others supported the full-fledged

involvement. This self-contradicting view was also observed in the analysis of the pre-

intervention questionnaire data. As that of the instructors’, such view of the students can

also be related to their educational ground. As Smith (2000:61) observed, in educational

cultures where “[l]earners and teachers have been given very specific roles in the

classroom it is difficult for them to change”. However, though some of the students seem

unwilling to do the ‘teacher’s job’, the students seem to be less conservative than the

instructors were.

Regarding the issue of validity of LSA, the students unanimously disagreed to the

proposition that LSA is valid in both the interview and the questionnaire data. The

students shared the instructors’ view and frequently referred to learners’ dishonesty and

incapability of using the assessment criteria. This is also an eco of the concerns popularly

raised in the conceptual literature, (e.g., Tudor, 1996).

Regarding the benefit of LSA in the interview, the students could speculate identifying

and correcting error as the only contribution of their self-assessment, but in the

questionnaire, agreed to all the four cognitive benefits and two of the non-cognitive ones.

This discrepancy between the interview and questionnaire data could be attributed to their

unclear understanding and lack of experience with LSA. However, though they could not

clearly see its contribution, both the students and the instructors considered LSA as the

necessary component of classroom teaching learning process.

177

Generally, in the results of this part the study the instructors and the students exhibited

more or less similar conceptions about LSA. They had the views and beliefs that

classroom assessment is done primarily to audit and describe learning outcomes; had the

elementary idea about what LSA is; were reticent about involving learners in the

complete cycle of assessment and validity of students’ marking of their own work; and

could see few benefits of LSA in improving learning.

As Pajares (1992) argues, teachers’ conception of the teaching learning practices is the

product of their educational experience as student. This strongly suggests that students

and teachers are likely to develop similar conception about the phenomena in education.

Therefore, similarities between the subjects’ conception is most likely because both the

instructors and the students share similar educational culture and experiences.

4.5.1.3 Validity of LSA of English Oral Performance

The next research question guided a part of this study concerning validity of LSA is:

To what extent can learners provide a valid assessment of their own English

language oral performances? (RQ2.)

This question was answered by comparing the students’ self-score (the score they

provided to their own English oral performance) against the instructors score using

descriptive and inferential statistics and correlations. The analysis of the data from the

pre-intervention oral performance assessment shows that there was significant difference

between the mean values of the two set of scores compared, the students’ scoring being

greater than that of the instructors’ (P< 0.005). In addition, the two sets of scores

correlated positively but poorly (r = .276). Taking the assumption that the instructor’s

scoring is a reliable scoring against which the validity of the students’ scoring could be

178

tested, these results show that the students scoring of their own work is less valid as

compared to that of the instructor.

Though it is difficult to compare results of the studies of validity of LSA because of a

number of conceptual and methodological inconsistencies among the studies (Boud &

Falchikov, 1989; Topping, 2003) this finding can be aligned with the findings of

relatively older studies reported in Boud & Falchikov, (1989) and with the relatively

recent ones reported in Ross (2006) in which the students overrated their performance

compared to ratings by external part like teachers and tutors. In a more recent study, Lew

(2009) also reported that students overestimated their performance as compared to the

grade given by the tutors. LSA was as weakly correlated (ranging from .07 to .31) with

the tutors’ grade.

Chen (2005) has also reported significant difference between self-assessment of Chinese

freshman students’ English oral performance and their teacher and peer. However, the

form of relationship between the teachers’ and the student’ scoring in this study was the

reveres. In Chen’s study the Chinese underrated themselves awarded themselves lower

marks than awarded by their teacher. As Chen speculated, source of such differences may

be the societal and educational cultural expectations of the students; “modesty is a virtue

in Chinese culture” (p. 254).

Generally, these findings strengthen the popular concerns mentioned in the conceptual

literature and echoed by the subjects of this study as well.

179

4.5.2 The Effect of the Training

The other focus of this study was how or the way training may influence the students’

skill of assessing their English oral performance and the conception they had held. This is

guided by the questions:

1. What is the effect of training on the validity of learners’ assessment of

their own English oral performances? (RQ3. A) and

2. How does training in self-assessment influence the learners’ conception of

this assessment mode? (RQ3. B)

4.5.2.1 On the Validity of LSA

The finding from this aspect of the study indicated that the training improved the

students’ skill of judging the quality of their own work. Comparison between the mean

values of scores given by the students and the instructor before and after the intervention

indicated that there had been statistically significant difference before the training while

the difference after the training was reduced to be statistically non-significant. The

correlation statistics also showed that the correlation between the two sets of scores was

improved after the training: the correlation had been positive but weak before the

training, and improved to be medium after the training.

This signifies that the training helped the students to modify their view of objectives of

learning English oral performance from the point of grading to the development of oral

skills, and to better understand marking criteria they used which in turn, encourage them

to move away from egocentrism (being totally subjective) to a little objectivity.

180

This finding is consistent with some other studies like Ross, Rolheiser and Hogaboam

(1998) in which grade 4-6 students trained in self-evaluation and the treatment group

became more accurate in their self-evaluation. Chen’s (2008) also trained a group of 28

Chinese EFL learners in assessing their own English oral performance and concluded that

the training improved the validity of learners’ self-assessment.

4.5.2.2 On the Students’ Conception of LSA

The analysis of the data after the intervention indicated that the training has affected the

subjects’ pattern of conceptions of LSA positively. Firstly, the findings from the per-

intervention data analysis showed that the students prioritised measuring and describing

achievement purposes of classroom assessment, but the result of analysis after the

intervention indicated that the students prioritised improving learning as the major

purpose of classroom assessment and put the others as secondary. Secondly, the subjects

modified their understanding of the concept of LSA and they could describe the advanced

form of self-assessment and the whole process that they failed to do in the pre-

intervention data. Next, the mixed and contradictory beliefs about the appropriateness

and necessity of learners’ involvement in the process of classroom assessment wholly

which had been observed in the analysis of the data before the training was cleared in the

data after the intervention. In addition, they could articulate more number of benefits they

could derive from self-assessment as compared to what they mentioned earlier. They

even witnessed that they started experiencing the advantage of participating in the

process of self-assessment and the training.

However, the participants remained more or less sceptical about the validity of the marks

given to one’s own work. In spite of the improved validity of their self-scores, the long

181

standing beliefs that ‘the teacher is the knower’ and ‘human being is selfish’ persisted in

the subjects’ belief system. This is contrary to Chen’s (2005) finding of study of

Taiwanese self-assessment of oral performance in EFL university classroom. In Chen’s

study, learners were asked to assess themselves and then to reflect on validity of their

self-assessment. The students reflected the belief that they assessed themselves honestly

and correctly. This difference may be attributed to the contextual factors in which the

studies were carried out. In the case of this study, it may imply that such thinking has

been ingrained in to the learners’ belief system and needs more training and practice to be

improved.

Generally, improvements have been observed in the students’ understanding, beliefs, and

perceptions of LSA and validity of learners’ self-scorings in the findings of post

intervention data. This change can be attributed to the effect of the training the subjects

underwent because it is very less likely that there is any extraneous variable to affect the

students’ conception and skills of assessing their own work in general and English oral

performance in particular during the time of the study. For instance, there was no any

indication that any of the instructors of courses other than Spoken English II (Enla 243)

raised issues related to self-assessment. In addition, as discussed in section 3.5.1, to

complement the limitation of the single-group quasi-experiment design, first the

measures of the dependent variables i.e., the validity of LSA of the oral performance and

the students’ conception of LSA were taken twice and stable baselines were demarcated.

Furthermore, after the post-intervention data were collected and analysed, additional data

were collected and analysed from another class of students but with similar profile. The

findings from these data also corroborated the findings of the pre-intervention data.

182

Therefore, the changes in the dependent variables after the intervention can confidently

be attributed to the function of the training.

4.6 Chapter Summary

This chapter presented the analysis of data and discussion of the findings. The

presentation and analysis of the data is organised thematically. The qualitative data is

presented in textual form supported by tables where seemed helpful. The quantitative

data were also presented in tables and followed by descriptions and interpretations.

The analysis of the data related to conception of LSA before the intervention revealed the

respondents’ understandings of the principal purpose of classroom assessment, and

description of their concept of LSA. Their views and beliefs about who should be

involved in carrying out classroom assessment, and whether or not students are in a

position to provide a dependable judgement of their own work; the cognitive and non-

cognitive contributions of and/or problems related to learners’ SA. The analysis of the

English oral performance assessment data before the training also marked the extent of

dependability of the scores provided by the learners of their own performance. The

analysis of the data collected after the intervention indicated the direction of effect of

training on the students’ conceptions of LSA and the dependability of the learners’

marking of their own work.

The discussion of the result generally indicated that first, the two groups of subjects of

the study held nearly similar understandings and beliefs about the themes raised and the

pattern of their thinking is consistent across the thematic categories. Next, it also

indicated that the students significantly overrated their own English oral performance

183

than the instructor. The post intervention result showed the difference between the

students’ scoring of their own performance and the instructors scoring decreased to a

non-significant level, and the pattern of their thinking about LSA was also changed.

It also confirmed that some of the findings are not peculiar to this study, i.e., similar

studies carried out elsewhere out of Ethiopian context have reported similar results.

However, some findings are related to the contextual factors like educational traditions

where the studies were conducted. The next chapter turns to the conclusions and

implications of the findings and finishes the thesis.

184

5 Chapter Five

Summary and Conclusions

5.0 Introduction

The preceding chapter dealt with the presentation and analysis of the data and discussion

of the findings. This last chapter winds up the thesis. First, it summarises the thesis and

presents the conclusions drawn from the findings. Then it discusses the implications of

the findings. It finishes by suggesting direction for further research.

5.1 Summary

LSA plays significant role in improving students’ learning. The conceptual and empirical

literature has confirmed that it enhances learning by positively influencing their approach

to learning and their emotional feeling and social interaction. However, the assumptions

individuals often make about assessment based on what they have experienced in the past

rather than in terms of the new circumstances that confront them affect the practice of

assessment. The conceptual and the empirical literature on LSA indicate a number of

problems that may impede the implementation of this assessment format. The problems

of conceptions and issues related to validity are among the areas of frequent concern. In

addition, LSA has been neither used nor studied in Ethiopian context. This initiated this

research.

This study attempted to find out the patterns of conception of LSA held by students and

instructors in the English program Wollega University. It also examined the extent of

validity of learners’ scoring of their English oral performance and the effect of training

intervention on the existing validity and the students’ conception.

185

The nature of the research and the need for validation through triangulation necessitated

the use of concurrent Mixed Method design. Thus, both qualitative and quantitative

methods were used. Corresponding to the methods, interviewing along with

questionnaires was the research strategy used to study the conceptions of LSA. Oral

performance assessment and single-group quasi-experiment were used to study the

validity of the self-assessment and the effect of training on the validity and the

conception. The tools for data collection were interview schedule, pre- and post

intervention performance assessment, Likert-type 5-point scale multi-item questionnaires,

and training materials. The tools were self-developed and validated by different

techniques like expert validation and test of internal consistency. Pilot study was also

carried out to test the effectiveness of the instruments and the strategies employed.

The study involved 5 EFL instructors and 46 EFL students. In the procedure of data

collection, first, the students and the instructors filled out the questionnaires and then

interviewed to elicit data on their conception about LSA. Next, the students assessed their

own oral performance on a task based on their spoken English II (Enla 432). Then, 12hrs

training on self-assessment of English oral performance was give to the students. Lastly,

the students were interviewed and filled out the questionnaire again.

The qualitative data from the interviews were transcribed coded and interpreted

qualitatively, and the quantitative data from the oral performance assessments and the

questionnaires were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The analyses of

the qualitative data were presented thematically in text form and the quantitative data

were tabulated and described.

186

The findings from the analysis of the pre-intervention interview and questionnaire data

indicate that both groups of subjects held less favourable conceptions of LSA, and the

self-assessment of oral performance data show that the students marking of their own

work is not valid; there is statistically significant difference between the students’ and the

instructors’ scoring. The post-intervention data analysis suggests that the training

improved the students’ conception and the validity of their self-assessment. The findings

were discussed in relation to both the empirical and conceptual literature and conclusions

were drawn based on the discussion. The implications of the findings to classroom and to

the teacher development have also been discussed and the need and direction for further

research is suggested.

5.2 Conclusions

This study has shed light on the issues raised in the research questions and the following

conclusions are drawn from the findings. Regarding the conceptions about LSA, firstly,

the analysis of the qualitative and the quantitative data on the participants’ conceptions

indicated that there is established belief among the subjects that classroom assessment is

primarily done for describing learners’ achievement by grading and categorising and that

the responsibility of assessing students is exclusive domain of the teacher’s job. The

subjects’ belief of the purpose of classroom assessment is in harmony with their views of

retaining teachers’ responsibility of assessment: when the solely measuring and

describing purpose of assessment is prioritised, assessment is seen as something done by

teachers on students.

Secondly, the description of LSA provided by the subjects, though can be labelled as self-

assessment, is in the lowest level where the interest is on simplest form of knowledge that

187

does not involve analysis, synthesis, interpretation and communication. Such type of self-

assessment requires little participation in the complete cycle of assessment. Thirdly, the

subjects’ were sceptical about the appropriateness of allowing students in the whole

process of assessment and the validity of the scores provided by the students on their own

works. They were also unable to recognise the contribution of LSA to cognitive and non-

cognitive aspects of learner development.

Such conception of assessment in general and of LSA in particular is not in line with the

basic tenets of constructivism and humanism and the current thinking of assessment

reform. Classroom assessment should be done primarily not as a tool for checking on

students’ with the principal aim of grading and reporting students’ achievement but as a

tool for improving learning. Even when it is intended for measuring and describing

purpose, it should be guided by the learning outcomes that encourage deep learning.

In addition, classroom assessment to serve its purpose, i.e., improve learning outcome, it

should be linked to LSA that provides opportunity for the students at least to discuss

success criteria and mark their own performance followed by reflection on their

performance; the type of self-assessment that Boud and Brew labelled it Communicative

Interest.

Thus, it is concluded that conception of the subjects i.e., their understandings, perceptions

and beliefs about LSA is less sophisticated and less positive. It is not the kind of thinking

that tertiary level instructors and students are expected to hold so that their assessment

practice would be congruent with Active Learning approach.

188

One more conclusion related to the conception is that the instructors’ and the students’

conception about LSA is interconnected and comes from the same source. As can be seen

in the analysis sections, they both held very similar understandings and beliefs about the

major themes. This less favourable conception does not seem to emanate from the

knowledge and professional practice and experience. This is because LSA, even in its

simplest form, is rarely if at all, used at all levels of Ethiopian educational institutions.

The instructors’ responses to the interview have also confirmed that they were not using

self-assessment in classrooms. Thus, the source of the existing conception is not the

existing knowledge and practice but the past educational experiences that the subjects

underwent.

In relation to the second construct studied, validity of the LSA of English oral

performance, the comparison between the scores provide by the learners on their own

English oral performance and the instructor’ score indicates that the students score is

bigger than the instructors and the difference between the mean values is statistically

significant. The correlation analysis also shows positive, but poor correlation. Then it is

possible to conclude that the students’ scoring of their own English oral performance did

not have criterion-related validity, given the instructors marking as a reliable criterion

against which the students’ marking is checked.

The third focus of this study was effect of training on the validity and the conceptions.

Regarding the validity, the analysis of the scores provided by the students and the

instructor on the post-intervention oral performance assessment indicate that though the

students’ marking is still greater than that of the instructor, the difference is statistically

not significant. The correlation analysis also shows there is positive medium correlation

189

between the two scores. This means the training helped the students to assess their oral

performance fairly and to minimise the difference between the instructor’s and the

students’ scoring. The conclusion is, thus, the training has positively affected the

students’ ability to assess their own English oral performance in the classroom.

In relation to the conception about LSA, the analysis of the post-intervention data

indicated that there is an observable change in the learners’ pattern of understanding and

beliefs about all the themes in focus, but one. They, perceived improvement as the prior

purpose of classroom assessment; got the understanding of the advanced type of LSA;

developed the belief that learners should take part in the complete cycle of assessment;

and could speak the various advantages of being involved in self-assessment and its

drawbacks. Thus, it is logical to conclude that the training brought positive effect on the

students’ conception in general. However, the training did not considerably affect the

students’ belief about honesty and ability to provide valid and reliable information about

their own performance. This may be explained by the less flexible nature of belief than

knowledge. Although it is impossible to demarcate the boundary between belief and

knowledge, belief is more stable than knowledge and needs persistent persuasion to be

modified.

5.3 Implications

Higher education is at high stake in two interrelated senses. It should provide the

prospective graduates with all the cognitive and non-cognitive (meta-cognitive, social,

and affective) skills and competencies they need at the workplaces. It is also responsible

to build and sustain a learning society, citizens who developed self-learning skills so that

190

they become lifelong learners and be able to function effectively and efficiently in the

dynamic world (Knight 2005).

Assessment, as a major component of the teaching/learning process, plays the pivotal role

in achieving these desired goals of higher education. The practices of classroom

assessment, guided by conceptions, highly influence the route the learners take to their

learning. Assessment can serve multi-purpose, when the purpose of measuring and

describing is prioritised and/or perceived by the students that way (even if it is actually

not), the students use surface approach to learning like memorisation and rote learning.

They also work ‘to beat the system’ and prefer academic dishonesty to engaging in

meaningful learning; and the reverse is true when assessment is directed at the improving

purpose.

Cognizant of this effect of assessment and the need of improving students’ learning, the

Ministry of Education recommended the use of formative assessment in higher education

(MoE, 2002, 2003). However, the practice does not seem going in the way it was meant

to be. The conclusions drawn from the findings of this study indicated some major

pedagogical implications that help to react to such problem. The implications are related

to classroom teaching and teacher training.

5.3.1 Implication for Classroom

One implication of the findings from this research relates to tertiary classrooms. In this

study, the instructors’ and the students’ responses to the interview questions implied that

LSA was not the component of the EFL classroom instruction. As mentioned in Section

5.2 above, this is also true for other tertiary levels in the country. This absence of LSA

191

shows the incongruence among the components of teaching/learning approach opted for,

which in turn implies the difficulty of achieving the goal set for English language

teaching in general and that of oral performance in particular because it is what goes on

in the classroom that determines students’ learning.

Black and Wiliam (1998) and Clarke (2005) stress that formative assessment devoid of

LSA is very less likely to serve its purpose. To enhance the contribution of classroom

assessment to the improvement of students learning outcomes, LSA should be part of the

teaching learning process. Therefore, the instructors should be encouraged to recognise

this fact and consider using it as one of the variety of forms of formative assessment

when they plan for and design assessment for their classroom. It should also be noted that

the benefit of LSA by far outweigh the problems like invalidity and consuming time.

Therefore, more focus should be on its importance than its problems.

This study has also shown that learners held less positive conception that was not

favourable to practice LSA, and they lack the knowledge, skills, and experience of

assessing themselves. The conception that was developed out of the educational system

over long period may not change overnight. In addition, LSA by itself is a cognitively

demanding task, so it cannot be simply added to the usual classroom activities. As has

been proved in this study, training can help to improve the students' skills of self-

assessment and the less positive conceptions. Therefore, the learners should be provided

with explicit training and exercise integrated to their first year first semester subject area

courses so that they benefit from self-assessment during their stay in the university or

college.

192

5.3.2 Implication for in-service and pre-service Teacher Training

and Development

This research has also indicated that the conception held by the instructors is not

consistent with the current thinking of classroom assessment in line of the constructivism

and humanism. As conception is most likely to be derived from their experiences as

students in different levels and professional training, it is logical to say that the

instructors have either not come across topics related to LSA or given as much emphasis

as it deserves. One indication of this case is that there is little, if at all, topic of LSA in the

description of the course Language Testing (TEFL 608) for post graduates students of

MA in TEFL in Addis Ababa University and other older universities, where most of the

lecturers in the universities and colleges in the country are trained. In addition, from the

experience of the researcher, the material for HDP training that is intended for teachers’

professional development in tertiary education institutions does not give due emphasis to

the topic of LSA.

It follows that the conception held by the instructors is not fertile ground for LSA to be a

component of classroom assessment. From the teachers professional development point

of view, once such conception of the teachers is made explicit, it is necessary that the

conception be modified because conception colours and shapes teachers pedagogical acts,

and it is clear that the more positive and sophisticated conception of learning and

assessment they hold, the more likely they are willing to embrace it.

Therefore, in-service instructors should be provided with training opportunities aimed at

enhancing their professional skills and conceptions related to LSA. In addition, course

193

materials for the pre-service trainees should also be revised so that they contain sufficient

contents and methods to help learners get the knowledge and skills of LSA.

This could be done through both the in-service and pre-service teacher training programs

and the TPD programs established in educational institutions. The institutions that train

English language teachers for different levels should consider including and/or

emphasising on the topics of formative assessment in general and LSA in particular.

Moreover, the TPD programs like HDP that run in universities need to give considerable

attention to the topic related to LSA in their materials.

5.4 Limitations of this Study

This study has provided some insight into Wollega University EFL classrooms regarding

the instructors’ and the learners’ thinking about and the validity of LSA in relation to oral

performance. However, it does not claim to be perfect when scrutinized from

methodological perspectives.

One of the limitations of the present study is related to the extent of generalizability of

the findings. That is, it was relatively small in scale, involving only one university

among the 31 plus government universities and other many private university colleges.

Therefore, the number of students and instructors it involved cannot be said to represent

all tertiary level EFL learning and teaching community. It would have been more

generalizable to the larger Ethiopian tertiary level EFL context if it had involved more

universities. However, this research did not aim to develop systematic generalisation of

the findings to all Ethiopian university EFL classrooms, but rather to provide detailed

insight of the issues in focus in that particular context.

194

Nonetheless, although the students and the instructors participated in this study were not

necessarily the representatives of all the Ethiopian universities EFL students and

instructors, they reflect the current situation in relation to the issues of LSA treated in this

study because Ethiopian universities are almost similar in almost all aspects like

composition of the students and the instructors, their educational backgrounds and others.

Another limitation of this study is related to the design of the experimental part. As this

research used single-group quasi-experiment design, it does not normally be internally as

valid as the true experimental designs are supposed to be. However, one way such quasi-

experiment safeguards its internal validity is by taking repeated measures of the

dependent variables to establish the baseline of the behaviour/s prior to the treatment or

In this study, the dependent variables were measured twice because of the time constraint

during the data collection. Though the literature does not say the number of times the

variable in focus should be measured to get stable baseline, the researcher believes, and it

seems logical, that it should be taken more than twice. However, it should be noted that

there was almost no variation between the first and the second measures of the

behaviours. In addition, to complement this weakness, and see whether it is possible to

confidently attribute the changes in the dependent variables to the effect of the training, at

the end of the post intervention phase data was gathered from similar group of students

(2nd

year EFL students taking the same course) after almost a year. Findings from

analysis of this data were compared to the pre- and post-intervention findings, and

indicated that this latter group’s conception about LSA and the extent of validity of LSA

is almost the same to the findings from the pre-intervention data confirming that the

195

changes in the dependent variables (conception and validity) was the function of the

training intervention.

5.5 Recommendation for Further Research

First of all, as mentioned in the preceding section, one of the limitations of this study is

the extent of the generalizability of its findings. In addition, there is no any study on this

area in Ethiopia. Therefore, to confidently generalise the result of this kind of research to

the larger population of Ethiopian universities EFL classrooms, replicating the research in

a number of universities that are, at least statistically, representative of all universities is

in order.

Secondly, another limitation of this study is related to its design that could have affected

its validity. Therefore, to come up with a study that has very good internal validity,

interested researchers could replicate this study using the true experimental designs.

Next, LSA is a crosscutting issue that operates across all curriculum areas and school

subject at all levels. Though EFL classroom shares many features with the other school

subjects, there are also features that are peculiar to each subject and grade level.

Referring to others’ works, Winterbottom et al., (2008:17) note, “Different school

subjects have different bodies of knowledge, different sets of agreed procedures, different

social norms, and exist within different epistemological frameworks”. Then, LSA as an

integral part of the classroom events is influenced directly or indirectly by these

differences. Therefore, it is suggested that practitioners and researchers would do more

research to understand LSA in each of the specific context within EFL itself and other

subject areas and different grade levels.

196

Lastly, issues related to LSA go far beyond conception and validity. It is related to

culture, language proficiency, grade level, and etcetera. Thus, to develop comprehensive

understanding of LSA, researchers could attend to all these aspects. Above all, in

Ethiopian context where LSA is less practiced and hardly studied, researchers and

practitioners would contribute much to the improvement of the classroom

teaching/learning if they attempt these various aspects.

197

References

Abbot, M. G., Caccavale, T. S., & Stewart, K. (2007, Fall). Cognitive Benefits of

Language Learning. (G. L. Duke Tip, Interviewer)

Abiy Yigzaw (2005). Effects of Teacher Mediation on Students Approaches to Reading.

Unpublished PhD Thesis. AAU.

Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. & Wall, D. (1995). Language Test Construction and

Evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alem Eshete. (1974). The Pre-war attempt to promote the use of the English language in

the education system of Ethiopia in place of French. The Ethiopian Journal of

Education , 6 (1), 65-84.

Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classeroom An

Introduction to Classroom Research for LAnguage Teachers. Cambridge :

Cambridge University Press.

Ashcroft, K. (1996). Series Introduction. In K. Ashcroft, & D. Palacio, Researching into

Assessment and Evaluation in Colleges and Universities (pp. 1-26). London:

Kogan Page.

Atai, M. R., & Meratzadeh, B. (n.d.). The impact of Self, Peer, and Teacher Evaluation

on Iranian EFL Students'Writing Performance. Retrieved october 15, 2009, from

http://www.paaljapan.org/resources/proceedings/PAAL10/pdfs/atai2.pdf

Awol Endris (1999). Conceptions of Language Teaching and Learning and Classroom

Decision-making. A case Study of two High Schools. Unpublished PhD Thesis.

AAU

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice: Designing and

Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

198

Baye Ashebir. (2006). Assessment Practice of EFL Teachers in Teacher Education:

Alternative Methods in Focus (The case of Dessie CTE 10+3 Programme. MA

Thesis . Addis Ababa University.

Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston:

Pearson Education Campany.

Black, P. (1999). Assessment, Learning theories and Testing Systems. In P. Murphy

(Ed.), Learners, Learning and Assessment (pp. 118-134). London: Paul Chapman

Publishing.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for

Learning: Putting it into practice. New York: Open University Press.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2006). How to Research. New York: Open

University Press.

Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. (2007). Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education:

a practical guide. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Boud, D. (1997). The Move to Self-assessment: liberation or a new mecanism for

opperation? Education-Line , 10-23.

Boud, D., & Brew, A. (1995). Developing a Typology for Learner Self Assessment

Practices. Research and development in Higher Education , 18.

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Introduction: assessment for the longer term. In D.

Boud, & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education:

Learning for the longer term (pp. 3-13). London: Routledge.

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative Studies of Student Self-Assessment in

Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of Findings. Higher Education , 18 (5),

529-549.

Brown G. with Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing Student Learning in Higher

Education. London: Routledge.

199

Brown, G. T. (2004). Teachers' Conception of Assessment: implications for policy and

professional development. Assessment in Education , 11 (3), 301-318.

Brown, G. T., & Hirschfeld, G. H. (2008). Students' Conception of Assessment: Links to

Outcomes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice , 15 (1), 3-

17.

Brown, H. D. (2003). Language Assessment Principles and Classroom Practices.

London: Longman.

Brown, S., & Knight, P. (1994). Assessing Learners in Higher Education. London:

Kogan Page.

Bunts-Anderson, K. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of language learning: out-of-class

interactions. Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference 2003.

Butler, Y. G. (2006). On-Task versus Off-Task Self-Assessments among Korean

Elementary School Students Studying English. The Modern Language Journal ,

90 (4), 506-518.

Butterfield, S. (1995). Educational Objectives and National Assessment. Buckingham:

Open University Press.

Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: OUP.

Central Statistics Agency. (2007). Statistical Abstract. Addis Ababa.

Chambers, F. (1997). What Do We Mean by Fluency. System , 25 (4), 535-544.

Chamot, A. U.(2004). Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching.

Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching , 1 (1), 14-26.

Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language Learning Strategy Instruction: Current Issues and

Research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 25, 112-130.

200

Chappuis, S., & Stiggns, R. J. (2004/5). Classroom Assessment for Learning.

Educational Psychology , 206-209.

Chen, Y. m. (2008). Learening to self-assess oral performance in English: A longitudinal

case study. Language Teaching Research , 12 (2), 235-262.

Chen, Y. (2005). Self Assessment of Oral Performance in the EFL University Classroom.

Retrieved January 13, 2009, from

http://fllcccu.ccu.edu.tw/conference/2005coference_2/download/C10.pdf

Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Peer Assessment of Language Proficiency. Language

Testing , 22 (1), 92-121.

Clapham, C. (2000). Assessment and Testing. Annual Reveiw of Applied Linguistics , 20,

147-161.

Clark, E. V. (2004). How language acquisition builds on cognitive development. Trends

in Cognitive Sciences , 8 (10), 472- 478. avilable @ http://fias.uni-

frankfurt.de/~triesch/courses/cogs1/readings/Clark04.pdf.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London:

Routledge& Falmer.

Commission of the, European Communities. (2007). Schools for the 21st Century.

Commission Staff Working Paper. Brussels.

Cook, V. (2001). Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. New York:

Hodder Arnold.

Coombe, C. (2002). Self-Assessment in Language Testing: Reliability and Validity Issues.

Retrieved February 2009, from Karen's Linguistics issues:

http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/selfassess.html

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design choosing among five

approaches. London: Sega Publication.

201

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods

Research. Thousand Oak: SAGE Publication.

Cummins, J., & Yee-Fun, E. M. (2007). Academic Language: What Is It and How Do We

Acquire It? In J. Cummins, & C. Davison (Eds.), International Handbook of

English Language Teaching Part I (pp. 797-810). New York: Springer Sciences-

Business Media, LLC.

Dagne Tiruneh. (2009). The exploration of the Practice of Continuous Assessment by

EFL Instructors: the case of Jimma Teachers' College. MA Thesis . Addis Ababa

University.

Dann, R. (2002). Promoting Assessment as Learning improving the learning process.

London: Routledge/Falmer.

Davis, D. C. (1971). Model for a Humanistic Education The Danish Folk Highschool.

Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Dawson, C. (2002). Practical Research Methods: A user-friendly guide to mastering

research techniques and projects. Oxford: HowtoBooks.

Deakin-Crick, R., Lawson, H., Sebba, J., Yu, G., & Harlen, W. (2005). Retrieved

september 13, 2009, from

http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWebContent/reel/review_groups/assessment/assessment

_protocol5.pdf

Derebssa Dufera. (2006). Quality of Teaching and Learning in Ethiopian Higher

Education: Tension between Tradition and Constructivest Teaching Approaches.

summary of Proceedings of the Conference on the Future Direction of Ethiopian

Higher Education (pp. 127-135). Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press.

Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Dickinson, L., & Carver, D. (1980). Learning How to Learn: Steps towards Self-

Direction in Foregign Language Learning in Schools. ELT Journal , 35 (1), 1-7.

202

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). The Differential Effects of Three Types of Task Planning on the

Fluency, Complexity and Accuracy in L2 Oral Production. Applied Linguistics ,

30 (4), 474-509.

Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving Assessment through Student Involvement Practical

Solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A

Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks. Review of Educational

Research , 70 (3), 287-322.

Freeman, D. (1996). Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers

know. In M. B. Kathleen, & D. Nunan, Voices From the Language Clasroom (pp.

88-117). Cambridge: CAmbridge University Press.

Freeman, D., & Richards, J. C. (1993). Conceptions of Teaching and the Education of

Second Language Teachers. TESOL Quarterly , 27 (2), 193-216.

Gardner, H. (1999). Assessment in Context. In P. Murphy (Ed.), Learners, Learning and

Assessment (pp. 90-117). London: Paul Chapman Publishing in association with

The Open University.

Geeslin, K. L. (2003). Student Self-Assessment in the Foreign Language Classroom: The

Place of AuthenticAssessment Instruments in the Spanish Language Classroom.

Hispania , 86 (4), 857-868.

Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The Sage Incyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods

(Vol. 1). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.

Greene, J. C., Kreider, H., & Mayer, E. (2005). Combining Qualitative and Quantitative

Methods in Social Inquiry. In B. Somekh, & L. Cathy (Eds.), Research Methods

in the Social Sciences (pp. 274- 282). London; Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

203

Harris, M. (1997). Self-assessment of Language Learning in Formal Setting. ELT

Journal , 51 (1), 12-21.

Havnes, A., & McDowell, L. (2008). Introduction: Assessment dilemmas in

contemporary learning cultures. In A. Havnes, & L. McDowell (Eds.), Balancing

Dilemmas in Assessment and Learning in Contemporary Education (pp. 3-14).

New York: Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group.

Heal, J. (2003). Mind, Reason and Imajination :Selected Essays in Philosophy of Mind

and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heaton, J. B. (1990). Writing English Language Tests. London: Longman.

Housen, A. & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Second

Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics , 30 (4), 461-473.

Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Irons, A. (2008). Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and Feedback.

London: Routledge.

Jafarpur, A., & Yamini, M. (1995). Do Self-Assessment and Peer-rating Improve with

Training? RELC Journal , 26 (1), 63-85.

James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Beyond Methods: assessment and learning practices and

values. The Curriculum Journal , 17 (2), 109-138.

James, M., McCormick, R., Black, P., Carmicheal, P., Drummond, M.-J., Fox, A., et al.

(2007). Improving Learning how to learn: Classrooms, Schools and Networks.

London: Routledge.

Knapper, C. K., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Lifelong Learning in Higher Education.

London: Kogan Page.

204

Knight, P. (2007). Grading, Classifying and Future Learning. In D. Boud, & N. Falchikov

(Eds.), Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the longer term

(pp. 72-86). New York: Routledge.

Kreber, C. (2003). The Scholarship of Teaching: A Comparison of Conceptions Held by

Experts and Regular Academic Staff. Higher Education , 46 (1), 93-121.

Kwok, L. (2008). Stuents' Perceptions of Peer Evaluation and Teachers' Role in Seminar

Discussions. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching , 5 (1), 84-97

retrived from @ http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v5n12008/kwok.htm.

Kwon, E. S. (2004). A New Constructivist Learning Theory for Web-Based Design

Learning with Its Implementation and Interpretation for Design Education.

Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Ohio State University

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, H. M. (1991). An introduction to Second Languagr

Acquisition Research. New York: Longman.

LeBLANC, R., & Painchaud, G. (1985). Self-Assessment as a Second

LanguagePlacement Instrument. TESOL Quarterly , 19 (4), 673-687.

Lewkowicz, J. A., & Moon, J. (1985). Evaluation: A Way of Involving the Learner.

Evaluation: Pratical Papers on English LAnguage Education , pp. 45-79.

Lim, H. (2007). A Study of Self- and Peer-assessment of Learners' Oral Proficiency.

CamLing , 169-176.

Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European LAnguage

Portfolio:involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process.

Language Testing , 22 (3), 321-336.

Logan, S., & Moore, N. (2004). Implementing Learner Training from a teacher's

Perspective. Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference.

Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

205

Luoma, S., & Tarnanen, M. (2003). Creating a Self-rating Instrument for Second

Language Writing: from idea to implementation. Language Testing , 20 (4), 440-

465.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and

Design. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Makasha Kasaye. (2005). An Exploration of the Task Designing Procedure of EFL

Teachers in Ethiopia. A case study. Unpublished PhD Thesis . Addis Ababa

University.

Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., & Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of Research Design and

Methodology. New Jersy: John Wiley & sons, INC.

Marshall, H. H. (2004/5). Cultural Influences on the Development of Self-concept:

Updating Our Thinking. Educational Psychology: Annual edition , 68-71.

Marton, F. (1981) Phenomenography- Describing Conception of the World around Us.

Instructional Science 10, 177-200

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & McTighe, J. (1993). Asessing Student Outcommes

Performance Assessment Using the Dimensions of Learning Model. Alexanderia:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McDonald, B., & Boud, D. (2003). The Impact of Self-Assessment on Achievement: The

Effect of Self-Assessment Training on Performance in External Examinations.

Assessment in Education , 10 (2), 209-220.

McNab, C. (1989). Language Policy and Language Practice. Implementation Dilemmas

in Ethiopian Education. Stockholm: Institue of International education, University

of Stockholm .

Medel-Añonuevo, C., Ohsako, T., & Mauch, W. (2001). Revisiting Lifelong Learning for

the 21st Century. Retrieved June 2010, from www.unesco.org/education/uie •

[email protected]

206

mehrang, F., & with Rahimpour, M. (2010). Investigating Effects of Task Structure on

EFL Learner’s Oral Performance. English Language Teaching , 3 (4), 10-17.

Mekonnen Disasa. (1998). Investigating Methods of Training for Developing Students'

Skill for Academic Oral Work. Focus on Social Science Students AAU.

Unpublished PhD Thesis . Addis Ababa University.

Mika, S. (2006). Peer-and Instructor Assessment of Oral Presewntations in Japanese

Universaity EFL Classrooms: A pilot Study. Retrieved may 2009, from

http://dspace.wul.waseda.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2065/11344/1/13M.Shimura.pdf

Miller, L., & Ng, R. (n.d.). Peer Assessmewnt of Oral LAnguage Proficiency. Retrieved

January 28, 2009, from http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/10/1000076.pdf

MoE. (2005). Education Sector Development Program III. Addis Ababa: MoE.

MoE. (2008). Review of the Ethiopian Education Training Policy and Its Implementation.

Addis Ababa.

MoE. (2003). Teacher Education System Overhaul (TESO) Handbook. Addis Ababa.

Nunan, D. (1988). Learner-Centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Nuru Mohammed. (2000). Feedback in the EFL Classroom An Exploration of Its Role in

the Communication of Teacher Expectation. PhD Thesis . Addis Ababa: Addis

Ababa University.

Omelcheva, M. (2004, February 19). Self and Peer Evaluation in Undergraduate

Education: Are Promises Worth Risking the Perils? Retrieved June 2009, from

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p117476_index.html

207

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies What Every Teacher should Know.

Boston. HEINLE & HEINLE Publishers.

Oxford, R. (1994). Language Learning Strategies: An Update. Retrieved February 13,

2009, from Online Resources: Digests:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pric/is_199410/ai_1412535941/col1

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a Messy

Construct. Review of Educational Research , 62 (3), 307-332.

Partnership for 21st century skills. (2008). 21st Century Skills, Education &

Competitiveness: a resource and policy guide Retrieved December 11, 2009, from

http://p21.org/documents/21st_century_skills_education_and_competitiveness_gu

ide.pdf

Peirce, B. N., Swain, M., & Hart, D. (1993). Self-Assessment, French Immersion, and

Locus of Control. Applied Linguistics , 14 (1), 25-41.

Pierson, C. A., & Beck, S. S. (1997/8). Performance Assessment: The Reality that

Influence the Reward. Educational Psychology Annual Edition , 225-229.

Race, P., Brown, S., & Smith, B. (2005). 500 Tips on Assessment. London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Reagan, T. (1999). Constructivist Epistemology and Second/Foreign Language

Pedagogy. Foreign Language Annals , 32 (4), 12-25.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roever, C., & Powers, D. (2005). Effects of Language of Administration on a Self-

Assessment of Language Skills. Retrieved May 13, 2009, from www.ets.org/toefl:

http://www.ets.oreg/Media/Research/pdf/RM-04-06.pdf

Ross, J. A. (2006). The Reliability, Validity and Utility of Self-Assessment. Practical

Assessment, Research & Evaluation , 11 (10), 1-132.

208

Ross, J. A., & Starling, M. (2005). Effects of Self-Evaluation Training on Achievement

and Self-Efficacy in a Computer-Supported Learning Environment.

Toronto: Paper presented at AERA.

Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1998). Effects of Self-evaluation

Training on Narrative Writing. Toronto: Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the Canadian Society for the study of Education.

Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in Second Language Testing: a meta-analysis and analysis of

experiential factors. Language Testing, 15(1), 1-20.

Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. J. (2007). Intervening in the use of

strategies. In A. D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language Learner Strategies (pp.

141-160). Oxford New York: Oxford Univesity Press.

Sarantakos, S. (2004). Social Reearch. Palgrave: McMillan.

Schilling, J. (2006). On the Pragmatics of Qualitative Assessment: Designing the process

for content analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment , 22 (1), 22-

37.

Sebba, J., Deakin-Crick, R., Lawson, H., Yu, G., Harlen, W., & Durant, K. (2008).

Systematic review of research evidence of the impact on students in

secondaryschools of self and peer assessment. London: EPPI-Centre SSRU.

Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (2003). The Era of Assessment Engineering:

Changing Perspectives on Teaching and Learning and the Role of New Modes of

Assessment. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising New

Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer

Academic Publisher.

Seliger, H., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Shing, L. W., & Fai, H. S. (2007). Conceptions of Assessment of Mainland China

College Lecturers: A Technical paper Analyzing the Chinese Version of COA III.

The Asia Pacific-Education Researcher , 16 (2), 185-198.

209

Silashi Argaw. (2007). The Perception and Implementation of Continuous Assessment

(the case of Debub Ethiopia College of Teacher Education . MA Thesis . Addis

Ababa University.

Sinclair, B., & Ellis, G. (1992). Survey: Learner Training in EFL Course Books. ELT

Journal , 46 (2), 209-225.

Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling Second Language Performance: Integrating Complexity,

Accuracy, Fluency and Lexis. Applied Linguistics , 30 (4), 510-532.

Smith, K. (2000). Nagotiating Assessment with Secondary-school Pupils. In P. B.

Michael, & A. Littlejohn (Eds.), Classroom Decision-making: Negotiation and

Process syllabus in Practice (pp. 55-62). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Stern, H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Stevick, E. W. (1990). Humanism in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2003). Students' Perception about New Modes

of Assessment in Higher Education: a review. In M. segers, F. Dochy, & E.

Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualitie and

Standerds. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation

and assessment in higher education:a review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher

Education , 30 (4), 331-347.

Sweet, D. (1993, September). Consumer Guide. Retrieved May 21, 2010, from

Archived Information:

http://www2.ed.gov/pups/OR/ConsumerGuides/perfasse.html

Tan, H. K., Teo, C. T., & Ng, C. S. (2011). Variation in Students’ Conceptions of Self-

Assessment and Standards. Education Research International , 1-9.

210

Tan, K. (2007). Conception of Self-assessment: What is needed for long-term? In D.

Boud, & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education:

Learning for the longer term (pp. 114-127). London: Routledge.

Tang, C. (1994). Assessment and student learning: Effects of Modes of Assessment on

Students’ Preparation Strategies. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving Student Learning:

theory and Practice (pp. 151-170). Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, the

Oxford centre for Staff Development.

Taras, M. (2001). The Use of Tutor Feedback and Student Self-assessment in Summative

Assessment Tasks: towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment

and Evaluation in Higher Education , 26 (6), 605-614.

Taras, M. (2003). To Feedback or Not to Feedback in Students Self-assessment.

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 28 (5), 549-565.

Taras, M. (2002). Using Assessment for Learning and Learning for Assessment.

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , 27 (6), 501-510.

Taye Regassa. (2008). English as a Tool for Quality Education: A Study of Its Role in the

Reading Comprehension of First Year Students at College of Social Sciences,

Addis Ababa University. Proceedings of the National Workshop on LAnguage,

Culture and Development in Ethiopia; Good Governance and Development in

Ethiopia; Higher Education, Democracy and Development in Ethiopia. The

Ethiopian Chapter of OSSREA (pp. 181-193). Addia Ababa: Addis Ababa

University Press.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research:

Integrating Quantitative and qualitative Approaches in the Social and

Behavioural Sciences. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.

Todd, R. W. (2002). Using Self-assessment for Evaluation. English Teaching Forum , 40

(1), 16-19.

211

Topping, K. (1998). Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities.

Review of Educational Research , 68 (3), 249-276.

Topping, K. (2003). Self and Peer Assessment in School and University: Reliability,

Validity and Utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising

New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualitie and Standerds. (pp. 55-88).

Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Tsui, A. B. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In M. B.

Kathleen, & D. Nunan, Voice fron the Language Classroom (pp. 145-167).

Cambridge: Cambridge Universaity Press.

Tudor, I. (1996). Learner-centredness as Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Vandeyar, S., & Killen, R. (2007). Educators’ Conceptions and Practice of Classroom

Assessment in post apartheid South Africa. South African Journal of Education,

27 (1), 1-15.

Van lier, L. (1989). The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: Longman.

Wallace, S. (2007). Teaching, Tutoring and Training in the lifelong Learning Sector.

Exeter: Learnint Matters.

Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative Language Testing. New York: Prentice Hall.

Wenden, A. (1991). Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Wen-ming, Y., & Xiao-zhen, X. (2008). Self Assessment in Second Language Learning.

US-China Foreign Language , 6 (5), 20-24.

White, E. (2009). Student Perspectives of Peer Assessment for Learning in a Public

Speaking Course. Asian EFL Journal , 33, 1-55.

212

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative Assessment: Designing Assessment to Inform and Improve

Students' Performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2009). Changing Student’s Perceptions of Self and Peer

Assessment. Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium.

Queensland: REES.

Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers A Social

Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Winterbottom, M., Brindley, S., Taber, K., Fisher, L., Finney, J., & Riga, F. (2008).

Conception of Assessment: trainee teachers' practice and Values. The Curriculum

Journal , 19 (3), 193-213.

Winterbottom, M., Taber, K. S., Brindley, S., Fisher, L. G., Finney, J., & Riga, F. (2008).

Understanding differences in trainee teachers' values and practice in relation to

assessment. Teacher Development , 12 (1), 15-35.

Woods, D. (1996). Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching. Beliefs, decision-making

and classroom practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wragg, E. C. (2001). Assessment and Learning in the Secondary School. London:

Routledge/Falmer.

Yalew Endawok. (2004). Teachers' Beliefs, Knowledge and Practrice of Learner-centred

Approaches in Schools of Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Journal of Education , XXIV

(2), 17-41.

Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. London: The Guilford

Press.

Yonas Adaye. (2008). The Role of English in Quality Education in Ethiopia: Focus on

Primary School English Teachers' Perception of Communicative Approaches.

Proceedings of the National Workshop on Language, Culture, and Davelopment ;

Good Governance and Development; and Higher Education , Democracy and

213

Development in Ethiopia: the Ethiopian Chapter of OSSREA, (pp. 143-180).

Addis Ababa.

Zariski, A. (1996). Student peer assessment in tertiary education: Promise, perils and

practice. In Abbot, J and Willcoxson L. (Eds) Teaching and Learning Within and

Across Disciplines. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Teaching and Learning Forum

(pp. 189-200). Perth: Murdoch University retrived from

http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1996/zariski.html.

Zergahun Chufamo. (2007). An Investigation of Implementation of Continuous

Assessment by EFL Instructors. A case of Hossana College. MA Thesis . Addis

Ababa.

214

6 Appendices

Appendix 1: Students’ and instructors’ interview schedule

1. What does it mean by assessment?

2. What do you think is the main purposes of classroom assessment

3. Who should do the assessment?

4. How do you describe learners’ self-assessment?

5. Do you think that students should be involved in assessment scheme, i.e., developing

assessment criteria and standards, and marking their own work? why/why not?

6. If you (students) are allowed to assess your/their own performance, do you think you

(students) assess the work honestly and realistically, why/why not?

7. Do you feel that engaging students in the evaluation of your/their own learning outcomes

has any benefits and/or problems? If yes, what are the benefits (advantages) and/or

problems (disadvantages)?

215

Appendix 2

Instructors’ interview Transcript

Appendix 2A: Instructor A

Interviewer: good afternoon. Thank you for giving me your time for this interview. As I told you last

time I’m doing a research for my PhD study. So, the very purpose of this interview is to gather data

for the research. We discuss some issues of assessment in general and students’ self assessment in

particular. Basically in our discussion there is no any wrong or right response; I just want you to tell

me whatever you feel I mean your opinion and thoughts genuinely. What is important is your

genuine response that makes the study valid. And I want you to be sure that any information I get

will be used only for my research. Therefore, just feel free and respond to my questions. Thank you

again.

To begin with general ideas, what do we mean by assessment in general and particularly classroom

assessment, and why is it for? What is the main purpose of classroom assessment?

Ins: first of all I would like to thank you for having me as one of your interviewees for your research.

Having said this, when we come to the meaning and purpose of classroom assessment, when we say

assessment it is the method of assessing evaluating students’ performance. When we come to the

purpose of assessment it does have a number of purposes. The first one is to check whether the

students really understand what we teach in the classroom that is one of the main purposes of

assessment the second is as I think it helps to identify the standard of our students because

identifying academic standard of our students helps us to help them differently because students do

have different standards: there are high performing students, low performing students and medium

performing students by using assessment we can identify them then we can give some tutorial

classes for those performing at low level. This is the second purpose of assessing students. Thirdly,

the purpose of assessing is it helps students to improve themselves. In a sense when we assess

students we have to give them feedback and based on the feedback or they get from the instructor

students can improve their error based on the feedback they get from the instructors. So, for me

these are the three purposes that lead us to assess our students.

Interviewer: ok you’ve mentioned three purposes of classroom assessment: one is to check their

understanding the second is to put them into categories and the third one is to help them improve

their learning. If you are asked to put them according to their priority, which one do you prioritise?

Ins: ok for me the first one is the first priority; just I assess to check whether they learnt or not what I

taught them. This is my prior purpose.

Interviewer: good, coming to my next question, who do you think should do the assessment? just to

make it clear, conventionally or as we know, it is the teacher who carries out assessment; but who

do you think is responsible for classroom assessment?

216

Ins: for me both the teacher and the students should take responsibility of assessment. That can be done

in a number of ways. That is there are a number of assessment ways. That is one. Secondly the

students should also evaluate themselves to know at what level they are performing, they have to

know themselves. Are they performing well, are they underperforming or are they performing at

medium level. Each and every student should evaluate himself. I don’t know how we can let them

evaluate themselves since I’m not in it practically, but basically I believe both the teacher and the

students should be involved in assessment.

Interviewer: good, now if we say that students should be involved in assessment, in what way can they

be involved?

Ins: students assess themselves in different ways for example when they take a test or assignment they

can say whether they have done well or not when they listen to a lecture or attend class they

evaluate how much they have understood or how difficult the topic was, so students participate

these and other ways.

Interviewer: ok that is one. The other way of involving learners in assessment is through learners’

self-assessment. if you are asked to describe learners’ self-assessment, how do you describe it?

What is self-assessment for you?

Ins: ok self-assessment of students, it is a difficult question in fact since I’m not practicing it, but

when we say students should assess themselves they should have some benchmark or some criteria

set by the teacher or in consensus with the students. So based on the already established criteria that

both the teacher and students set that means they can commonly create some criteria based on

which students should be assessed. After setting criteria I think students can evaluate himself in

terms of the already set criteria. I think that is what we mean by self-assessment.

Interviewer: you’ve just mentioned that self-assessment means students participate in setting criteria.

In the process of assessment what comes after setting criteria is marking students work or

performance. My question here is do you think students should be involved in setting the criteria

and giving mark to their own work or performance, especially when it is a kind of subjective

assessment like oral or writing performance? Can they and should they be allowed to do these?

Ins eeem, I don’t think students should evaluate their tests their assignments because that could lead

them to be biased for themselves. Even about setting criteria in practical world it is not practicable,

but if we really need to make them evaluate themselves we have to do that.

Interviewer: good. You said that student should not be allowed to mark their own test and

assignments. Why you said that? Can you explain the reason?

Ins: the reason why I said that is it can lead them to bias they could favour themselves while they are

marking.

Interviewer: do you mean they do not mark honestly?

Ins: sure. That is what I mean. That is my fear.

Interviewer: what do you think is the cause of that dishonesty?

217

Ins for me the main reason is that if we generally see students’ current performance, they are not

performing well. Generally when we take the overall students’ performance, they are not

performing good. Since all students are not performing good, what they want to do is they search

for ways they can get marks to get good grade. So their poor educational background their poor

performance may lead them to favour themselves as I think this is the main thing or driving force.

Interviewer: so you mean it cannot be valid if students are allowed to give marks for themselves.

Ins: it cannot be valid among all students by all students, but you can find few genuine students

specially those who are good students who are confident to their performance. They can genuinely

mark their work or performance, but those who are medium or poor performers can favour

themselves. There is high probability to favour themselves.

Interviewer: ok may be may last question. You said that students should be involved in some aspects

of the assessment process. Is there any benefit or advantage for the students and the teacher, and

any problem?

Ins: yes, the advantage is that it develops transparency in grading between the students and the teacher

and that will help minimise complaints that will be raised at the end of the course when the grade is

done because if the grade is done transparently every student knows how they have been marked

how they have been graded so there will not be any complaints by the students at the end. This will

be one of the main advantages. Secondly if we can practically do that, students might feel

committed to their education. It would increase students’ commitment. I guess they feel committed

to their work because they are going to evaluate their work clearly in front of other students and

teacher and they would be ashamed of scoring less. Therefore they will be motivated to do better.

So sense of commitment would be developed by that sort of assessment.

Interviewer: Any problem it has besides its invalidity?

Ins: I have already mentioned the problem of bias or selfishness. Apart from that I don’t see any

disadvantage or problem. Its advantage outweighs its problem.

Interviewer: thank you. I have finished my questions, but if you have anything to say or comment?

Ins: from its very concept it is a good way of assessment. if students self assess, it would be nice, but it

doesn’t practically work. What I suggest is if we believe in its importance its relevance, there

should be some mechanism devised to implement such kind of assessment because it has much

advantage and fewer disadvantages. For that disadvantage we have to search for solution (way) of

avoiding the invalidity of the marks given by students. to let them assess themselves or to avoid the

invalidity we can put some framework in which the students can think to mark certain questions.

That means we can jot down some key points so that the students are guided by that points. We can

encourage learners’ self-assessment in such a way.

Interviewer: once again thank you for your cooperation and time.

218

Appendix 2B: Instructor B

Interviewer: good afternoon. Thank you for your cooperation to give me this interview for my study. The

very purpose of this interview is to gather data for the research. We discuss some issues of

assessment in general and students’ self assessment in particular. Basically in our discussion there is

no any wrong or right response; I just want you to tell me whatever you feel I mean your opinion

and thoughts genuinely. What is important is your genuine response that makes the study valid.

And I want you to be sure that any information I get will be used only for my research. Therefore,

just feel free and respond to my questions. Thank you again.

Let me start with a general question. What do we mean by assessment in general and particularly

classroom assessment for you, and why is it for? What is the main purpose of classroom

assessment?

Ins: alright, assessment is a technique by which we evaluate the performance and participation of students

in the class. Most of the time especially in our today time the main purpose is to check whether the

objectives set before were achieved or not. There could be two types: either at the end to check the end

result or the progress. So we can see in these two ways.

Interviewer: so you mean the main purpose of classroom assessment is to check whether the objectives

were achieved either at the end or while the teaching is in progress.

Ins: sure that is it but not only that it may also help the instructor it may help the teacher himself

sometimes to device the methodology mechanism if the mechanism devised is not of that

much effect.

Interviewer: well, coming to my next question related to this is that who do you think should carry out the

assessment?

Ins: ok, assessment should be carried out by the teacher. It can also be carried out by students, also by the

leader. Program leader can assess students. Sometimes parents can assess the students because there is

connection between parents and the institutions. So most of the time the teacher should assess in the

classroom based on their achievement based on their work day to day work. Students can also assess

each other. Sometimes parents can also be involved, and the program leader, department head and the

faculty heads can assess students.

Interviewer: good, you’ve said that students can take part in the assessment; you mentioned that they can

ass each other. What about themselves? Can they and should they assess their own work, performance?

Ins: self-assessment, yes possible, but it needs something. Guidelines are needed; the teacher should

prepare guideline for assessment. Students have to get the target of assessment, first they have to

change their attitude towards assessing themselves because they do not honestly assess themselves.

Interviewer: now you said that students can assess themselves, i.e., they can do self-assessment if they get

guidelines. Ok, if you are asked to describe students’ self-assessment how do you describe it? What is

learners’ self-assessment for you?

219

Ins: I can say self-assessment is the way one or somebody can check how much s/he has carries out certain

activity in a given time with the limited resource and also based on the objectives set. So if one person

assess themselves they have to focus on these points it is easy for them to check their attempts to reach

the target.

Interviewer: ok, what are the procedures in learners’ self-assessment what does it involves?

Ins: yaa, checking their results, checking their end results or progress and check if they have achieved

their target objectives. If the teacher gives them the guidelines, they can do this.

Interviewer: ok, the next question related to this is that to assess their students, instructors first design the

task for the assessment then set the criteria for marking the work or performance especially when it is

subjective assessment like for example writing a paragraph or critical reading comprehension or oral

performances. Then based on those criteria, she or he scores or gives marks to the work. Now, my

question is do you think students should participate in this assessment process? I mean can and should

they take part in designing the tasks, setting criteria and giving mark to their own work?

Ins: of course emmmm here there are certain difficulties because it was not practiced in our cases in our

situation but if we try to involve students in how to assess themselves even as you said they can set

their own criteria and pass through that and involved in that they can do though there are difficulties in

the practical aspect. For example when students are made to assess themselves they don’t honestly

assess themselves.

Interviewer: thank you, if we say students should be involved in the assessment scheme do you see any

advantages and or disadvantages I mean benefits and problems of learners’ self-assessment?

Ins: yaa, there are advantages. Basically we are focusing on student-centred method of learning, so when

students try to assess themselves they will also learn their mistakes, their strong sides and weak sides,

they will identify and learn by themselves this is one thing. Another when they assess themselves when

a person assesses himself or another, she or he identify mistakes and just consult the teacher or any

expert. So it can develop confidence within the person or within the student who assess himself or

herself. So it can develop confidence. It can facilitate learning also self learning. I can say this is

advantage. And disadvantage could be it takes time for the teacher to set criteria or guiding the students

needs additional time. And also many students may not honestly assess themselves. So this could be

the disadvantage.

Interviewer: ok, may be my last question, you said students may not be honest; it means when the students

mark their own work that mark may not be valid. Why do you think?

Ins: one thing is basically they may lack background the target of assessment. Another thing is the

students lack knowledge of the subject they learn. And another, naturally, human being likes himself so

they need to give high marks so they hide their weak sides and try to seem correct in all aspects. So this

is the weak side of self-assessment. anyway, if students believe in self-assessment and correctly focus

on the guide line provided, it is very important for learning.

Interviewer: thank you I have finished my questions, but if you have anything to add?

220

Ins: yaa I want to add something. That is most of the course, for example we are offering different course

for different departments common courses or major courses in English department. When we prepare

lesson or when we design some activities, there is no self-assessment part. Also in continuous

assessment when the general guideline is given from the faculty or department level, teachers’

assessment, group work and test it says most of the time, but no self-assessment is included in that one

in the course outline in the lesson plan also in whatever planned there. So if self-assessment is added as

one more technique of continuous assessment, it will improve students’ learning in students-centred

method. That is what I want to add.

Interviewer: thank you very much again.

221

Appendix 2C: Instructor C

Interviewer: good afternoon. Thank you for your cooperation to give me this interview. To introduce

myself, I’m Rufael Disasa, a PhD student at Addis Ababa University. I’m doing a research in

assessment. So, the very purpose of this interview is to gather data for the research. We discuss

some issues of assessment in general and students’ self assessment in particular. Basically in our

discussion there is no any wrong or right response; I just want you to tell me whatever you feel I

mean your opinion and thoughts genuinely. What is important is your genuine response that makes

the study valid. And I want you to be sure that any information I get will be used only for my

research. Therefore, you just feel free and respond to my questions.

Ok, let’s begin by talking about assessment in general. What do you think is or are the main

purposes of assessing students in classrooms?

Ins: it is or has multipurpose not only one purpose. The first purpose of I think I mean of assessment is

I mean it enables to check whether the students understand or not especially the objectives it could

be either general or specific and not only that the teacher also give grades at the end of the course it

is not only instrument which used to check whether the students understand or not but also it also

enable the teacher himself sometimes to device even the method if the method used is not effective.

An another importance of assessment might be it helps the students to share idea among themselves

these are I mean the importance of assessment

Interviewer: thank you. My next question related to this is that who should do the assessment. I mean

whose role whose responsibility to carry out the assessment?

Ins: I think it is clear I mean it is obvious it should be the teacher who gives the course. The course

instructor knows the general and specific objectives of the course and he has to check continuously

whether he has achieved his objectives. The instructor also must report the students’ grade at the

end of the semester or course. For this reason he is responsible for assessing his students. He is also

professionally trained. Anybody cannot do it. It is difficult for others to I mean who are not

involved in teaching the course they do not know the level of the students which content they have

covered. So this is clear as I think.

Interviewer: ok, let me go to my next question about learners’ self-assessment. What do we mean by

students’ self-assessment how do you describe it?

Ins: it is one way of assessment. Teacher’s assessment is formal one and learners’ self assessment is

another one. It is the way students evaluate themselves. They always check whether they understand

a topic or what they learned. A student can say which course is easy and which one difficult for

him. For example, when they study they can evaluate whether he or she has understood it. Again

after doing an assessment task exam or a test he or she can check how much he or she has answered

and missed. After the exam also they evaluate themselves by comparing one’s result with that of

classmate’s how well they have done the exam therefore students always make self-assessment

Interviewer: thank you. The other point I want to raise is that is it possible and appropriate to involve

the students in the assessment process. To make clear to assess students, the instructor or teacher

first prepares or designs the assessment task it can be a test or group assignment or anything. Then

222

he or she sets criteria for marking especially if the assessment is performance that needs subjective

scoring like writing a letter or paragraph like prompt or impromptu speech or dialogue the teacher

prepares criteria and then marks scores the performance using the criteria. My question is do you

think it is possible and necessary to involve learners in this procedure of assessment, that is in

setting criteria and giving mark formally?

Ins: ok, just before saying yes or no one thing is it should be seen in two ways. I mean as I understood

self-assessment is very important but if I mean students’ background should be considered. Students

are not aware of what self assessment is and its criteria it is better to be assessed by somebody else.

if the students are trained of the criteria in that case it is important but if in the case students are not

aware of self assessment they do not have good idea of assessment it will be problematic even it

might be destructive.

Interviewer: you mean students cannot participate in developing the criteria and marking of their own

performance?

Ins: ok, I mean this self assessment yes they should be involved in developing criteria. Again there

thing should be I mean here again here I mean the students background should be under question

that means his capability in developing if they have good understanding on the criteria of evaluation

in that aspect I mean he can be involved but students’ background is under question and need to be

considered.

Interviewer: good, if you allow your students to score or give mark to their own performance do you

think it will be valid I mean acceptable?

Ins: no here no doubt to say that they exaggerate their mark. The students want to get high mark good

grade, so they do not put the right mark they will be biased. Therefore the teacher should intervene

the teacher should supervise. if the students are left free without any intervention such exaggeration

happens. As the assessment is subjective the students see it from their aim there should be

intervention otherwise it is problematic

Interviewer: thank you. May be my last question If we try to use self assessment in classroom does it

have any benefit and or problem? in what ways?

Ins: for sure it helps. People internalize their mistake as they view than when people assess them so, it

is of high importance.

Interviewer: I have finished my question. Once again thank you very much for your cooperation.

Thank you.

Ins: you’re welcome

223

Appendix 2D: Instructor D

Interviewer: welcome. First of all thank you for giving me your time for this interview. I’m Rufael

Disasa, PhD student at Addis Ababa University. I’m doing a research in the area of classroom

assessment. So, the very purpose of this interview is to gather data for the research. And I want to

assure you that the information I get from you will be used only and only for my research.

Therefore, you just feel free and respond to my questions. We discuss some issues of assessment in

general and students’ self assessment in particular. Basically there is no any wrong or right answer;

I just want you to tell me whatever you feel I mean your opinion and thoughts about the points we

raise. What is important is your genuine response that makes the study valid.

Let’s start by talking about the purpose of assessment. What do you think is or are the main purposes

of learners’ classroom assessment in general?

Ins: well, beginning from the main purpose of assessment, as to me I feel that assessment is a means or

a tool that to check for the students their current performance might be or past experience might be

or plan it may help you to check whether students are engaged or they are going to be engaged in

some sort of activity, whether they understand or not the portion you taught them. So I think it is a

means or a tool for checking students understanding. You also grade the students achievement that

is grades because to decide they promote or fail

Interviewer: thank you, and who do you think should do the assessment? Who is responsible to

evaluate the students?

Ins: well, for me it is the teacher. Assessment is the part of teaching process. After teaching a portion

of the course the teacher need to check the effectiveness of his teaching. Therefore it is the teacher

who should carry out the evaluation.

Interviewer: ok, now let’s talk about students’ self-assessment. What do we mean by students’ self-

assessment, how do you describe it?

Ins: ok, em... students’ self-assessment as to me is what students do for themselves. A student can

assess or evaluate him/herself by thinking what he can do and cannot do. For example, when he

study he can evaluate how well he understand and which topic is difficult for him. They can also

evaluate themselves after doing assignments or taking a test. When they see the result they can

evaluate how much they have done. A student usually evaluates himself after getting the result of

the test by comparing with their classmates. So self assessment is the way students check their

ability and learning before and after they take tests and exams.

Interviewer: thank you. A relate question is that should students be involved in the assessment scheme

formally? To make clear, in the assessment process the teacher devices the assessment format may

be a test or assignment or class work. Then s/he will set the criteria for marking especially for

subjective assessments like writing a paragraph or speaking, debate like that, and then marks the

performance using the criteria. My question is that is it possible and appropriate to involve students

in doing these things of this assessment process? Why or why not?

224

Ins: in the assessment process I think that students should be involved in the assessment because might

be in my feeling is that when the teacher sets criteria you know he might gear to his own way might

be biased but if he or she engages students in setting the criteria of assessment it is good so I think

students should be involved in setting criteria of assessment together with the teacher. This might

help them to take responsibility of learning

Interviewer: ok, you said that students should participate in setting criteria. What about the marking?

Should they be allowed to give mark to their own performance?

Ins: this is very difficult. If students assess themselves you know everybody is selfish by nature you

know, so their aim is to score high mark to achieve high grade so the basis of their aim might be a

head of misleading might occur while they assess themselves but it is possible to avoid this

misleading if a kind of means of controlling is set if a kind of means is set this might be solved but

as I said first it is not acceptable.

Interviewer: thank you, ok, may be my last question. Do you think learners’ self-assessment, if they

participate in the assessment, has any academic benefit or any additional problem other than what

you have mentioned, i.e., its being not valid?

Ins: yes of course, as I mentioned earlier, it helps them to check their academic status where they are.

In addition when the teacher provides any kind of assessment activity students have got you know

both opportunity at the same time they assess themselves and they get a kind of opportunity to learn

from that activity. So, it helps

Interviewer: Ok, how does it help or in what way do they learn from their self assessment?

Ins: first, they check whether or not they understood the activity or what they are told to do. Second

they practice for example if it is a speaking or a writing task they practice speaking or writing.

Interviewer: I have finished my question. Thank you once again for your time and cooperation.

Thank you.

Ins: thank you

225

Appendix 2E: Instructor E

Interviewer: good morning, thank you for coming and your willingness to giving me your time for this

interview for my research on classroom assessment. So, why we are here I mean the only purpose

of this interview is to gather data for the research. And I assure you that the information I get from

this discussion will be used only and only for my research. Therefore, you feel free and just say

whatever you feel I mean your opinion and thoughts about the points we raise. We discuss some

issues related to assessment in general and students’ self-assessment in particular. You know there

is no any wrong or right answer; I just want you to express whatever you think is or should be the

case. What is important is your genuine response that makes the study valid.

Ins: Alright

Interviewer: Ok let’s start by talking about the purpose of assessment. What do you think is or are the

main purposes of classroom assessment in general?

Ins: as to me assessment is a way of finding information about students’ performance behaviours

interests their participation in teaching learning process so that you give grade for the performance.

So in my opinion the main purpose of assessment is to identify the students strengths and weakness

and to know their academic status whether they top middle or low and then to give remedies on the

weak area

Interviewer: thank you the next point is who should do the assessment? I mean who is responsible to

for the assessment practice?

Ins: well for me the teacher it must be the course instructor. Because the teacher has the objectives and

the criteria he or she has to check whether or not the students understood it whether or not the

objectives are achieved to he or she knows when and how to assess also to give grade is also his

responsibility part of his job as a professional so he has to take continuous assessment of his

students this is one. It is difficult for others to do this I mean they do not know which portion is

covered how the method of the delivery for example the department can support by giving guidance

but do not do the assessment by itself the instructor knows the level of the students what and how

he taught which content they have covered. So, I think this is clear.

Interviewer: ok, now my next question is about students’ self-assessment. What do we mean by

students’ self assessment, how do you describe it?

Ins ok, em... for me students’ self-assessment is students evaluating themselves student assess or

evaluate themselves always they think for example, when they study they evaluate how much they

understand and which topic is difficult for them. They can also evaluate themselves while and after

doing assignments or taking a test. From their result of test exam or any assignment they can

evaluate how much they have done. each student is always evaluating him or herself. This is

students’ self-assessment

Interviewer: ok, let me raise a question related to students’ self assessment. You have said that the

teacher is responsible to carryout learners’ assessment.

226

Ins: yea, that is right.

Interviewer: but is it possible and is it necessary to involve learners in the assessment scheme? should

students assess themselves formally? To make it clear when the instructor is to make assort of

assessment he or she first thinks of the kind of assessment task whether it should be a sort of quiz or

class work or assignment then he or she thinks of the criteria against which she evaluates I mean

marks or scores the performance of the students on the task or activity to be carried out by the

students especially if the kind of assessment needs subjective scoring like for example writing a

letter, or developing a paragraph or speaking like dialogue or debate and others he should set clear

marking criteria and lastly she or he give marks to the students performance. My question here is

should students be involved in the setting of criteria and marking of their own performance work?

Ins: no in my opinion they should not they can’t participate if it is necessary there should be some

criteria prerequisite premedication steps for example in such kind of universities example Wollega

university there is continuous assessment you know the teacher assess students in that case if you let

the students to assess themselves the students are always in quest of marks they are searching for

mark even without any effort any endeavour or task they simply want to earn marks they just

simply are eager to get marks passing marks passing grades I don’t want to complain about the

administration or the legislation or anything but the policy let them to do so I know that so if you let

them assess themselves do they assess really? Unbiased? They cannot be honest at least you have to

be honest for yourself but you cannot be honest in search of marks you want to pass your course

you want to be confident when you get out of the campus you have to get job to live your life you

have to get your livelihood so in educational level the first criteria is you have better mark or better

grade when you where in school so hirers the job providers search you by your mark they look at

only the paper so the main aim or criteria for job provider is what is on the paper so they look at the

paper if they see good grade they select you by the grade not with your real potential anything else

so involving students in the assessment is not that much necessary and important because students

do not know that the aim of learning is a quest for knowledge they think learning is getting mark to

get job but if students know learning is not just getting mark but quest for knowledge it may not be

difficult to involve students in the assessment.

Interviewer: thank you, may be my last question is but does it help or not. I mean if we try to let the

students to participate in the setting of criteria and marking of their performance does it have any

benefit and or problems?

Ins: yea just I have mentioned one problem the students cannot be honest in giving mark for

themselves if not why should we bother it is just wasting time. But the benefit is students may be

active not passive and improve their participation this is the advantage

Interviewer: I have finished my questions thank you very much once again for your time and

cooperation thank you

Interviewee: Thank you

227

Appendix 3 Students’ Pre-intervention interview transcript

Interviewer: first of all I would like to thank you for giving me your time for this interview. To

introduce myself, I’m Rufael Disasa, a PhD student at Addis Ababa University. I’m doing a research in

the area of classroom assessment. So, the very purpose of this interview is to gather data for the

research. And I want to assure you that the information to be obtained from this interview will be

used for this research only; therefore, you just feel free and respond to my questions. We discuss

some issues of assessment in general and students’ self assessment in particular. Basically there is no

any wrong or right answer, I want you just to tell me whatever you feel I mean your opinion and

thoughts about the points we raise. And I hope you understand that your genuine I mean true

answer is very important for the validity of the research result. I also want to inform you that we can

express our idea using any language we are comfortable with if we want to. ማለት ሃሳባችንን በምመቸን

ቋንቋ መግለጽ እንችላለን ።

My first question is on some general ideas about assessment. if you are asked to say what assessment is and why it is for, how do you describe it, why it is done? What is assessment and what is the purpose of assessment? Shall we start from you?

S1 yes, assessment means evaluating ourselves or oneself when you do anything or if we take an

example or if we take our activity to see the value of our own self or evaluating you yourself that

means when you see the result or product of your job or your activity you see how the clarity of that

your job or how it can be available or how it can be accepted in front of the evaluator or to evaluate

ourselves

S2 that is important for the teacher because by taking assessment he can identify students who are

weak and strong, who have the knowledge. Unless he evaluates he cannot understand our potential

whether we understand his lecture whether it is clear or not without evaluation he did not

understand. Even in one class he may give lecture method for us on the same topic the same idea he

can understand which students have high capacity and which students have low capacity and which

students are medium without assessment he cannot identify it is important for the teacher also to

give grade for the students and when student make mistake or don’t understand his lecture the

teacher correct students and teach again

S3 : the purpose of assessment is during the teaching process established that means when the

teacher teaching students he evaluates which or among the students who are working hard to

differentiate who is weak in his work and his study evaluate whether they are who record the higher

mark he want to know when he is teaching who is hard working and to evaluate teach from one

grade to another grade students they need to be assessed and then evaluate to pass or progressive

purpose they pass from one session to another this is the main reason and whether the students

have understood what they have been taught before and to prepare themselves for the study

purpose

228

S4 okay thank you very much for giving me this chance to share my idea concerning assessment and

from the very beginning assessment means it is nothing but the way of evaluating students and when

we say the purpose of assessment the main purpose of assessment is nothing but evaluating or

measuring performance the work etc. of the students within the classroom during the process of

teaching learning and also the purpose is it helps to hold the students towards the work for example

in case of our university or Wollega university the process of teaching learning is continuous

assessment and due to this we have different tests and assignments throughout the week due to

this reason we visit library in order to answer the assignments and also in order to study for our day

to day quizzes if no continuous assessment students don’t study always they go to towns playing

therefore in a simple way or simple manner it helps to hold the students towards their work.

Interviewer እሽ ሌላ፣ ጥያቄዉን ለማሰታወስ ያህል አሴስመንት ምንድን ነዉ? ዓላማዉስ? ለምንድን ነዉ

መምህራን ተማሪዎችን ክፍል ዉስጥ የምገመግሙአቸዉ? ጥቅሙ ምንድን ነዉ?

S5 first of all thank you very much to give me this chance to explain what we mean by assessment.

Assessment means as he tried to define assessment is evaluating activity of any student while they

are learning their course and also the purpose of assessment is to evaluate the students depending

on their activities in the classroom and to search how the student attending their class during their

day to day life in the classroom not only in the classroom also in their dormitory. Another in order to

answer the questions which is given for the students they share different ideas among the group to

understand or to answer the questions which their teacher gives for them . it has own many

advantage or many purpose because it helps to change their mind in day to day activities search

different books to different assignments and study for the test given for them in day to day lesson.

S6 First of all thanks to give me this chance assessment means as I think evaluating someone how

much the person understands the given activity or the given topic, giving activity and evaluating the

students day to day. Another the purpose of assessment is to develop or increasing students ability in

the whole direction means speaking ability reading ability and also writing ability in classroom and

also the part of continuous assessment in giving assignment is the most important for developing the

students’ ability because among the students searching the assignment their ability increase from

time to time.

Interviewer okay gara biraan naminni yaada qabu yoojirate?

S7 assessment is shortly the way of evaluating that means I myself I’m student while the teacher is

teaching or giving lecture while he is attending is he attending or not attending the given lecture in

the classroom. Therefore the main purpose of assessment is to know where I am or where s/he is in

terms of the teaching learning process.

Interviewer: okay any additional or different idea? Ok let me go to my next question. Who do think

should do the assessment? whose role is assessment? ግልፅ ለማድረግ ሰስሰ ማድረግ ያለበት ማን ነዉ? የማን ድርሻ

ነዉ ብላችሁ ታስባላችዉ?

229

S2: ok thank you again the assessment in the classroom or during the teaching learning process is

conducted by both the students and the teacher in the classroom. For instance, when the teacher

gives a class work for example in case of writing skill the teacher gives different assignments to

students to do in the class and then after they write whatever work given to them the students

evaluate themselves through peer editing process means they evaluate themselves in the class by

sharing or exchanging their work with each other and also the evaluated material will be given to the

teacher for additional evaluation. So in our current kind the assessment is engaged by both teacher

and students and also other staff members.

S8 : ok I would like to thank our instructor conducting the research. When I proceed to my opinion

since assessment is one part of effective teaching learning process it must be done both by the

instructor and the students and also department.

Interviewer: any additional or different idea? no. do you agree with these guys? በነዚህ ሃሳብ ሁሉም

ይስማማል? The next question is ok you have said that assessment should be done by both the teacher

and the students. ok how or in what way do students do the assessment? can you explain how you

the students do assessment?

S5: ok the students can do assessment by when the teacher give some certain topic to do for the

students the teacher must give instruction because if there is no instruction the students cannot do

what they are going to do therefore the instructor must give the way the students can do or can

participate in the form of assessment.

S8 ok when I say assessment is done by both the teacher and students I mean that students can

evaluate themselves. It is obvious that instructors always evaluate students

Interviewer: ok more idea? I mean answer? Ok you have said that students can assess themselves.

That means it is self-assessment. a question related to this is what is self-assessment? tell me what

self-assessment is. How do you describe it? ግልፅ ለማድረግ ሰልፍ አሰሰመንት ወይም ተማሪዎች ራሳቸዉን መገምገም

ማለት ምን ማለት ነዉ እንዴት ይገለጻል?

S2 when we say self-assessment it means the method of assessment or the type of

assessment in which a person evaluate his work by his own without offering or giving to

other person.

Interviewer: can you give me any example?

S8 ok when we say self-assessment it is the way in which students can evaluate his or herself.

Example I myself can write one paragraph and edit that means I evaluate myself how the punctuation

the grammar is correct that means I evaluated myself

230

S6 self-assessment means a method of testing ourself or method of evaluating oneself means how I

can do something or how I done the previous test or I have done the topic on the assignment given

for me by this way students evaluate him or herself.

S7 self-assessment means it is assessment by which we evaluate ourselves for example if we go to

library we read our exercise books or references after that we may take some question or we

may ask ourselves what I know about this question already read it and what type of question.

By this without the involvement of others we ask ourselves and we can evaluate ourselves so

this is what we call evaluating ourselves

S1 self assessment means as I think evaluating ourselves for example if we do or if we are ordered

to do something or an activity that activity may be taken by another body and we will do and that

activity and come to evaluate ourselves. at that stage when we evaluate ourselves the acceptability of

our activity that we have done and how it can be acceptable and is as it is expected or as that activity

will be accepted or to identify error or to separate which is bad action from the good ones

Interviewer: any person to add or any different idea? Ok the next question is do you think learners

should participate in the assessment process? Look, in the process of assessment the teacher (the

assessor) first design the task which the students carryout it can be an objective kind of assessment

like multiple choice or matching items, or it can be a writing task or sort of oral performance. in the

case of the objective types the teacher just prepares answer key but In the case of the writing or the

speaking performance the assessor sets or prepares criteria by which he scores the performance and

then s/he marks the work using the set criteria. ማለት ምንድን ነዉ ፣ መጀመሪያ ፈተናዉን ያወጣል ወይም ተማሪዎቹ የሚሠሩትን አከቲቪቲ ያዘጋጃል ለምሳሌ የሚፀፍ ነገር ከሆን የፅሑፉን ዓይነት ይወስናል፣ ርዕሶች ያዘጋጃል። ቀጥሎ እንዴት

እንደምታረም ክራይቴሪያ ያዘጋጃል። ከዚያ ያርማል ክራይቴሪያዉን በመጠቀም። then my question is do you think

students should be involved in this process should they participate in designing the task, setting the

criteria and should they score their own work? ተማሪዉ ክራይቴሪያ በማዉጣትና ለሰራዉ ስራ ማርክ በመስጠት

ህደት ዉስጥ መሳተፍ ይችላሉ ወይ መሳተፍስ አለባቸዉ ወይ what do you think?

S4 ok thank you again evaluating himself for students is good because since certain criteria is given

for her or him depending on that criteria s/he can evaluate himself but on the designing of the

criteria it is not fair to give chance for or allow students to design criteria for evaluating because

as I think for example there may be inclination for instance if I am asked to design criteria for

evaluating a writing thing and if I am good at handwriting that means if the appearance of my

written thing is well attractive and if I commit many grammatical errors and punctuation and the

like I give the highest point for the neatness of the work and give low point for the other

problems in order to be beneficiary therefore such problem might occur during the designing of

the criteria by students so it is not fair to give a chance for students to design criteria.

Interviewer: what about the marking?

231

S5 this is also obvious that it is not fair because for example there is no person no one give a little

mark for himself since there is no awareness on such practice or since there is idea that for

example if a teacher allow students to do certain task and evaluate for themselves they think as

the teacher take the mark as permanent record due to this reason in most cases almost all

students give high mark for themselves during the self-assessment. So it is not fair not good.

S8 ok as he said giving mark for ourselves is not fair for example last week we have done certain

topic in that we gave mark to ourselves in that marking I may give high mark for myself for

benefit as he said so it is difficult to give mark to ourselves why when task given to us I may do it

how I know it and I consider myself this is right I do not know my error so since I don’t know my

error where my punctuation grammar error is I don’t know so I may think this is correct this is

right so I must get due to that reason giving mark to ourselves is not fair.

Interviewer: additional or different idea? ጥያቄዉን ለማሰታወስ ተማሪ ክራይቴሪያ በማዉጣትና ለራሱ ሥራ ማርክ

በመስጠት መሳተፍ ይችላል አይችልም አለበት የለበትም ለምን?

S5 wanti ani jechuu barbaadu gaaffii kiratera ittiin of madaalu ykn ulaagaalee barataan ittiin of

madaalu baasuuf hindanda’aa barataan jedhuuf akkasumas immoo barataan offsaaf qabxii

nikennaa jedhu irratti kun fudhatama qabaa hinqabuu jedhu irratti fakkeenyaaf akkuma isaan

kaasuu yaalanitti barataan hojii isaa ofiin of madaaluu irraa kan hafe qabxii ofii kennuu fi

akkasumasmoo ulaagaalee ittiin of madaalan sana baasuun barataadhaaf hindanda’mu

sababnisaas ulaagaa sana kan baasuu danda’uuf qabxii sana immoo ulaagaa sana keessatti

madaalee kennuu kan danda’u barsiisaa sana ykn instraktatara sana ta’uutu irrajiran jedha ani

akka Yaada kootiitti sababnisaa barataan of madaaluu keessatti barataadha waan ta’eef qabxii

ga’aa argachuu barbaada waldorgomna waanta’eef qabxii ga’aa argachuu waan barbaannuuf

hundi keenya qabxii xiqaa ofii hinlaannu ulaagaaleedhumasanarra dabarree qabxii ol’aanaa ofii

laanna fayyadamuu sababa barbaannuuf jechaadha kanaaf ulaagaalee sana baasuummoo

barsiisaan utuu jiru kan madaaluu danda’u ulaagaalee sana kan baasuu danda’u barsiisaa isa

barataa san madaalu malee ulaagaa sana baasuun barataadhaaf hindanda’mu. Akkasumasmoo

qabxii ofii laachuun barataadha dhugummaa hinqabaatu maaliif barataan yoo qabxii sana ofii

laate akkuma barsiisaan fuudhee qabxii sana isaaf galmeessee kaa’u itti fakkaata waan ta’eef

qabxii dhugaa ofii hinlaatu.

S8 akkumanni jechuu yaale barataan ulaagaalee qabxiin ittiin kennamuu baasuufi ulaagaalee kana

irratti hundaa’ee qabxii ofii laachuu danda’a yoo jenne haqa ta’uu hindanda’un jedha ani

sababnisaas ammayyuu Yeroo ingliffaan haasofnu dogongora qabna uttun dogongora Koo

beekee dogongora hinuumun ture Yeroon qabxii ofii kennus dogongora koo hinbeeku sababan

ta’ef akkamittin qabxii ofii kenna? Ammayyuu dogongoruma sana akka waan inni sirrii ta’eettii

qabxii ofii kenna Garuu namni biraan barataa biraan ykn barsiisaan dogongora ilaaluu nidanda’a

Kana malee hamma namni biraan hinilaalletti ofiikootii wantan hojjedhe sirriidha jedheen

hojjechaa ture kanaaf barataan ofii qabxii kennuun qulqulluu miti.

232

S3 አሁን ማርክንግ ክራይቴሪያ በተማሪዎች መስጠት የተለመደ ነገር አይደለም ደግሞም ለመስጠትም አዌር አይደለንም ደግሞም

ክራይቴሪያ በተማሪዎች መሰጠቱ ትክክል አይደለም ፐላሰ ደግሞ ለራሳችን ማርክ የመሰጠት ጉዳይ ደግሞ ፌር ላይሆን ይችላል አሁን እኔ የተወሰነ ነገር ሠርቼ ያንን ኤሬሬን አይደለም የማየዉ ሁሉንም ነገር አሟልቼ እንደሠራሁ የማይገባኝን ለራሴ ልሰጥ እችላለሁ ችግሮቼን አላያቸዉም ማለት ነዉ ስለዚህ ማርክንግ ክራይቴሪያም ሆነ ማርክ በተማሪዎች መሰጠት የተለመደም አይደለም ትክክልም አይመስለኝም

Interviewer እሽ ሌላ ተጨማሪ ወይም የተለየ ሃሳብ? Ok may be my last question ተማሪ ራሱን እቫሉኤት ብያደርግ

ማለትም ክራቴሪያ ብያወጣና ማርክ ብሰጥ ያለዉን አንዳንድ ችግሮች አንስታቿል ሌሎች ተጨማሪ ችግሮች አሉ? ደግሞ ችግሮቹ

እንዳሉ ሆነዉ የተማሪዉ ራስን እቫሉኤት ማድረግ ጥቅም አለዉ? ለተማሪዉም ሆነ ለአስተማሪዉ የሚሰጠዉ ጥቅም አለ?

S5 galatoomaa ofiisaaf barataan of madaaluun faayidaa qabaamoo isa jedhame irratti faayidaa qaba

sababnisaa barataan beekumsasaa ittiin guddifachuuf gargaara wanta barate sana hammam

akka hubate of madaalee fooyyeffachuuf carraaqa fakkeenyaaf barataan waatokko dubbisee

ulaagaa sanarra dhaabbatee waan dubbise sana bifa ofiisaatiin deebisee barressu hammam akka

hubate arga kanaaf faayidaa qaba jedheen Yaada.

S4 itti dabalee barataan ofii of madaaluun faayidaa qabaa isaa jedhuuf iddoon itti faayidaa qabu jira

iddoon itti faayidaa hinqabnes jira. Fakkeenyaaf amma yoo kaanee qixa waa dubbisuu bifa

layibirarii deemanii waa dubbisuutiin yoo ilaalle fakkeenyaaf namni tokko kitaaba fuudhee

seenaa haata’uu waa’ee waan tokko haata’uu hinqo’ataa hindubbisa. Erga qo’atee booda kitaaba

sana ykn materiyaalii sana cufee gaaffiilee adda addaa baasuu danda’a. Gaaffiilee adda addaa

erga baasee booda ofii isaa deebii itti laata ykn immoo yaadota jiran barreessuu yaale kana

booda wanti sun sirrii ta’eef ta’uu dhiisuusaa kitaaba sana ykn maateriyaalii sana bane

walbiraqabee ilaaala dogongorri jiraannaan maal godhaa nisiirreeffata. Salf asseesimentiin ykn

ofiin of madaaluun qixa kanatti gaariidha akkanni hinirraannffannee isa gargaara iddoo itti

dogongoree sana hinhiraanfatu. Garuu iddoon itti faayidaa hinqabuu jedheen yaadu fakkeenyaaf

spookenii keessattilee ykn dandeettii barressu keessatti fakkeenyaaf barataan keeyyata tokko

akka barreessuuf yoo kennameef keeyyata sana gaafa barressu akkuman jalqaba kaasee turetti

beeka jedheeti kan inni barressu waan beeka jedhu barreessa hinbeeku namni jedhu hinjiru.

Achi keessaa immoo dogongorri baayyeeen jiraachuu danda’u. kana booddee ofiisaatiin ivaalu’et

akka of godhu kiraateeriyaa kennameef sana irratti hundaa’ee jechaadha yoo ta’ee abbaan

ammoo dogongora isaa hinbeeku sirriidha jedheen barreesse waan ta’eef giraamarii irratti qabxii

guutuu ofii kennu danda’a paankchu’eeshinii irrattilee akkasumma beeka jedhee waan ka’uuf.

Kanaaf nannoo barreeffamaa nannoo hojii ofiin uumamu keessatti ykn kiri’eetiive work warra

ta’an keessatti ofiin of madaaluun qulqullina hinqabu jedheen Yaada

Interviewer: thank you. Anybody to add? Ok I have finished my questions but if you have anything

to say as the last word in general or have comment or suggestion about whatever we have been

taking so far you can say anything.

S1 kanan jechuu barbaadu faayidaan ykn bu’aan of madaaluu akkuma inni dubbate kanneen akka

waa dubbisanii namaa galuuf dhiisuu ilaaluu irratti of fooyyessuf waan nugargaarruf gaariidha

233

garuu waan akka barreeffamaa keessatti ulaagaalee irratti hundaa’anii qabxii ofii kennuu

keessatti rakkisaa natti fakkaata.

Thank you again

234

Appendix 4 Students’ post intervention interview transcript

Interviewer: first of all I would like to thank you for your willingness and devoting your time to give

me this interview. I don’t think I should introduce myself and tell you, the purpose of this

interview. I mean it is obvious. But I want to reassure you that the information to be obtained

from this interview will be used for this research only; therefore, as you did in the previous

discussion, you just feel free and respond to my questions. We discuss some issues of assessment

in general and students’ self assessment in particular. You also know that there is no any wrong or

right answer, I want you just to tell me whatever you feel I mean your opinion and thoughts about

the points we raise. And I hope you understand that your genuine I mean true answer is very

important for the validity of the research result. Also remember that we can use any language we

are comfortable with. ማለት እንዳለፈዉ ጊዜ አሁንም ሃሳባችንን ለመግለጽ በምመቸን ቋንቋ መጠቀም

እንችላለን ።

I start with my first question. what do you think is the main purpose of classroom assessment?

When teachers assess students in classroom what is their main purpose for doing it?

S1 when we say assessment it is used for developing students activity when there is assessment

now assessment is continuous when there are assessment students study their books and exercise

book what they learned or what they got from the lectures or from other indirectly help to

developing their knowledge. They don’t forget what they learn in and there is strong interaction

between students then to develop experience to interpreting and exchanging their idea the purpose

of assessment in general is the main one is to develop students’ knowledge. The teacher want to

develop the students language skills speaking writing etc. he uses assignments class works and

others to help students

S2 ok The main purpose of assessment is it makes the students active enough and also makes

students search different reference and also the main purpose of assessment is to maximise

students grade point and in continuous assessment most students are advantages to own pass mark

this the main purpose assessment.

S3 to begin from its definition as we discussed in the last weeks sessions the process and way of

evaluating someone’s performance work and the like and the main purpose of classroom

assessment in general is to improve the ability and also the performance of the students and the

other purposes are also to give grade to see weak and strong students to give feedback these are

the main purposes of assessment. if the students do not score good mark the teacher help by

tutorials or revision and also the teacher knows whether the students get the knowledge and

understand the topic he teach by giving different assessments.

S4 also as the other students tried to raise the purposes of assessment are many to check the strength

of students and their weakness and also as they said assessment is to give grade and the main

reason why the teacher assess students is to modify the ability or capacity of students and the other

thing is to get knowledge ability to develop our schemata this is the main purpose of assessment.

235

when you see your mark is less or not good as your classmate you work hard to get more in the

next time

S5 assessment in my opinion it helps us as we learn from our mistake not to repeat our mistake and

then assessment is to increase our ability and also its purpose is to teach us what we can do and

what we can’t do the teacher also give mark and store that mark and give grade at the end of

semester As I think assessment in the classroom is to develop students’ skills improving by

writing reading so on ማለት ልጆቹን አቅማቸዉን ለመቀየርና ለማሳደግ ከፍ ለማድረግና ሌላ በተጨማሪ ለተማሪዎቹ

ግሬድ ይሰጣል አይደለም አሴስመንት ይጠቀማል and to know which student is weak and which is

hardworking assessment is important and you remember if you get good mark you are happy ማለት የተሸለ ለማግኘት ደግሞ ትሰራለህ

Interviewer: additional idea or any different idea? Ok my next question is who should do the

assessment in the classroom? ማለት አሰስ ማድረግ ያለበት ማን ነዉ? በተለመደዉ አሰራር ተማሪን የምገመግም

አስተማሪዉ ነዉ ግን ስታስቡ ማን ነዉ መገምገም ያለበት?

S5 thank you as you said who should do the assessment the responsibility to do the assessment is both

teacher and students or both the instructor and the students

S3 your question is who should do the assessment and my answer is the assessment should be done by

both the teacher and the students. the advantage of doing assessment for students is since their

future work or since evaluating might be one of their future work for example if that person or

those persons become teacher in their future they are going to evaluate students in their teaching

learning process. Therefore from participating in evaluation or assessment students learn how to

evaluate somebody

Interviewer: ok you said that assessment should be done by both the teacher and the students. But

how or in what way can the students participate in the assessment? In what way they do

assessment? እንዴት ወይም በምን መልክ ነዉ ተማሪዎች በአሰሰመንት ዉስጥ የምሳተፉት?

S6 ok students participate in assessment in doing what the teacher assigned them to do and another is

by evaluating themselves or their classmates assignments for example in continuous assessment is

done by myself I evaluate myself my own assignment I can evaluate according to we learned last

time last week.

S5 in the assessment the students can discuss with the teacher and creates some criteria for doing that

assessment and depending on that criteria students also score their own work or their friends

work. The students also participate in doing assessment in different ways for example by taking

different assignment s in the form of group or individual and taking test to be evaluated. So the

responsibility or the person who have the responsibility to do assessment is both teacher and

students

236

S2 ok as my friend said students participate in assessment in different ways these are by doing

different assignments and participating in presentation and by evaluating their own work or by

evaluating other students work their presentation as we evaluated our presentation last time.

Interviewer: any person to any idea? Ok you have said that students participate in assessment by

evaluating their own work and others work the means by self-assessment and by peer assessment.

Now let me focus on self-assessment. What is self-assessment for you? How do you describe it?

Can you tell me the procedures in self-assessment? ራስን እቫሉኤት ማድረግ ወይም ሰልፍ አሰሰመንት ስንል ምን

ማለታችን ነዉ እንዴት ነዉ ተማሪዉ ሰልፍ አሰሰ የሚያደርገዉ?

S3 ok self-assessment is nothing but the way you evaluate your own performance depending on the

designed criteria may be by both the teacher and the students first by participating in the class

discussion with the teacher to design criteria and doing the assignment or activity in the class or at

dorm and marking for yourself for example last time when we learned self-assessment we

participated by designing criteria and giving mark to our own presentation. This is self

assessment.

S7 as you said self-assessment is to evaluate ourselves how we did something or to identify capacity

of doing that activity to determine our knowledge identify our error good or bad and self-

assessment should be taken by individuals from the designing of criteria by discussing in class and

giving mark for my own performance.

Interviewer: anyone to add or have different idea? Ok let’s move to the next point. You said

that self-assessment means students participate in designing criteria and give mark to their

own performance. do you think that it is appropriate for students to participate in setting

criteria and marking their own work? Should and can they do that? Do you think the mark

would be acceptable? ማለት ተማሪ ክራይቴሪያ በማዉጣትና ለራሱ ስራ ማርክ መስጠቱ ተገቢ ነዉ ወይ

የሚሰጠዉ ማርክስ ተቀባይነት ይኖረዋል ወይ?

S7 as you asked the students should participate or should not participate in making criteria for self-

assessment as I think to evaluate themselves the students should be participate to makcriteria

which they do in the future time or the students should be involved in setting criteria which is used

to evaluate what they are going to do because it helps him to know that criteria and work hard to

do as the criteria is needed. I also support that is good appropriate for students to give mark

depending on the criteria designed by the teacher and student because they follow that criteria and

cannot cheat the teacher by giving high mark.

S5 as I think setting criteria and giving mark based on the set criteria is not appropriate because

students don’t know how to set a criteria or to evaluate their work because students have no

awareness about criteria or self-assessment last week we have learned about setting criteria about

self-assessment now it is good for us to give mark for ourselves because we know the advantage

and disadvantage. If they know or have awareness about setting criteria and giving mark for

themselves it is possible and it is appropriate it is acceptable but one thing behind that if they

237

don’t have awareness about setting criteria and giving mark it is problem and the other one is

some students may be selfish or make themselves get good mark not depending on that criteria so

it is not appropriate for them to set criteria and marking for themselves

S3 my idea is opposite from other and my answer is yes. Students should participate in setting criteria

for evaluation here it is possible to avoid bias the teacher also help and give direction to set the

appropriate criteria. but it is not fair for the students to give mark for themselves because some

students can be honest but some students may not be honest they wish to get good grade which is

not according to their ability and knowledge.

S5 but that is good for students If we make bias we cannot know our weak side and strong side. If we

neglect the sense of selfishness we can evaluate ourselves depending on our work. If I give simply

high mark to get A or B for myself that is unnecessary it is beyond my capacity I should learn

from my mistakes. If I give something equivalent to my capacity I also try to learn from the

mistakes and improve my capacity.

Interviewer: ok any idea? Ok I have one more question to finish. Now some of you said that

students should participate in setting criteria and marking of their own work and some others have

the opposite idea or opinion and you give different reasons. My question related to this is does

self-assessment have any advantage importance and problems for both the students and the

teacher?

S8 it is important I support by depending on the given criteria any student can evaluate himself

whether or not followed the given activity done in the class or other assignments and so on. To

participate in these activities there should be self assessment. Therefore as I think it is very

important.

S1 I think self-assessment is not reliable every person doesn’t want to get low mark means there is no

honesty due to this every student is not equal to get mark everybody want to get high mark. If s/he

is honest that is good focus on his ability his knowledge to evaluate himself if depend on self

confidence that is good but all students do not put depending on the criteria due to this it is not

good students participate in marking.

Interviewer: does it have any advantage despite this problem of reliability, or any additional

problem?

S1 yes it has advantage it develops the knowledge ability and experience of the students so it is

necessary for students to became active

S8 when they evaluate themselves they don’t correctly evaluate themselves they consider themselves

as good writers so they can’t estimate their ability and they may be affected that they can’t get

their errors and correct it they can’t get experience can’t get the knowledge. If they do the

activity and accept as it is right or as it is correct one they can’t correct themselves.

238

S4 ok before as we said both students and teachers should be involved in the assessment and also how

students can participate or involved in assessment by doing self-assessment we have said. and

also students can set criteria and mark for themselves as we last time discussed and set criteria

for presentation and we give mark for ourselves by looking the video. Setting criteria and

marking has advantage or disadvantage you have said. As I think it has so many advantages

students set criteria after that they mark their own performance in this case since they

implement the set criteria they learn many things from that criteria. For example I don’t have

seen any such activity before. After you asked to do starting that research I saw many things

for example we participate in some activity and after that we give mark for ourselves I learned

many things from this how the criteria is already set depending on the criteria when I consider

my performance I considered myself where is my lack where is my strength where is my

weakness. In that case now I could get many ability and learn many things from this through

process I hope I will change it due to this reason it has many advantages. If I don’t did this

activities I don’t know this criteria and how I can improve my weakness. Now I get self

confidence. Due to that reason the students setting criteria and giving mark for their

performance is crucial to understand their weakness and improve their knowledge. It help us to

correct the wrong grammar, the vocabulary of speaking and also how to correct writing

problems. The disadvantage is if students have many classes in the week they have no time to

look at the video and give mark for themselves.

Interviewer: anyone to add or have any different idea? Ok I have finished my questions but if you

have anything to say if you have any comment or anything you like to add on whatever we

have been discussing

S3 ok as a conclusion I want to say self-assessment is advantageous for students because as you tried

to tell us during that teaching of self-assessment it is must for students to have certain criteria

they read or become aware of that criteria and for the future performance they try to modify

their weakness depending on the set criteria and also make themselves competent enough for

the other work. For example criteria for evaluating one performance may be fluency, grammar

and the like. When a certain student sees these criteria developed to evaluate the oral

performance it is must to develop his grammar ability speaking ability and prepare himself for

the better work for the future. So self-assessment is advantageous for the students. Again,

when we go the teaching profession for example we become teacher we can teach in high

schools and we must evaluate the students. If I don’t learn how to make criteria and mark I

can’t evaluate my students so it has opportunity to learn how to assess students

S6 first when you participate in self assessment it is good I became happy because I don’t see

this kind of teaching learning process another advantage is when the teacher give me

low mark I am not angry because we know the criteria and I may give wrong mark not

following the criteria but the teacher depend on the criteria so I accept. I also get the

ability to assess my students if I become teacher I can prepare the assessment criteria

and how to assess my students this is also advantage

239

S2 I say it have many advantage when you discuss about the criteria we learn we know what we must

do at the end the last objectives of the topic or the course so I know what must I do which book

I must read or I ask able students to fulfil that criteria that objectives after I give mark for

myself using the criteria, I can check where is my problem my error so I try to correct it for the

next time by this process my speaking ability or writing ability develop and improve so I have

self confidence

Interviewer: thank you so much again for your cooperation to help me a lot of time you gave me.

Thank you.

240

Appendix 5: Questionnaire filled out by students

Thank you for taking time to fill out this questionnaire. It is designed to collect data on students’ self-

assessment and it is used for research purpose only. Please genuinely indicate the degree to which each

statement applies to your thoughts and feelings about engaging in self-assessment of your English oral

performance by circling one of the numbers corresponding to each of the following statements. There

is no right or wrong statement. The degree of your agreement to the statements is expressed as:

Strongly agree (SA) Agree (A) undecided (UD) Disagree (DA) strongly disagree (SDA)

S. No Statements

1. The main purposes of classroom assessment is

to check whether or not students have mastered

what they have learned


indentifying the strengths and weakness of the

learners


helping learners to improve their learning

4. Students should participate in assessing their

own work


providing feedback to students about their own

performance

6. Learners’ self-assessment means students

marking their own test or assignment using

answer keys provided by the instructor


grading and categorising students

8. Self-assessment means participating in the

process of developing criteria and standards for

scoring and then marking one’s own

performance

9. The main purpose of classroom assessment is

checking whether or not the course objectives

are achieved

SA A UD DA SDA

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

241

S. No Statements


providing the teacher with information for

making ongoing decisions about her/his

teachings

11. One of the students’ role in the teaching learning process

is participating in the whole

process of assessment

12. Self-assessment means checking how well you

understood a topic like while you are reading a

material or listening to a lecture

13. If I assess my own work, I would be able to

recognize my errors easily

14. It’s the lecturer’s job to evaluate students’

work

15. Assessing my own work makes me feel

responsible for my learning

16. Being involved in assessment of my own

learning outcomes helps me to improve my

language skills and knowledge

17. If I am to mark my own work I would get

bored

18. Assessing my own performance has no

importance to the improvement of my language

skills and knowledge

19. Learners’ assessing their own work helps to

minimise cheating and misbehaving

20. I consider the real assessment to be assessment

that is done by the teacher.

21. Self-assessment enables me to understand the

quality of performance expected of me

SA A UD DA SDA

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

242

S. No Statements

22. Students can assess their own performance

honestly

23. It is difficult for students to understand the

assessment criteria

24. Assessing my own work makes me trust the

instructor’s marking

25. Learner’ SA is an important part of learning

teaching process

26. Students’ self-assessment can count to the final

grade

27. Self assessment makes me spend much of my

time on studying and working hard

28. Students’ self-assessment is just adding burden

to both teachers and students

29. Assessing myself makes me think what and

how much to do to achieve the learning

objectives

Thank you once again

SA A UD DA SDA

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

243

Appendix 6 Questionnaire filled out by instructors

Thank you for taking time to fill out this questionnaire. It is designed to collect data on

students’ self-assessment and it is used for research purpose only. Please genuinely ndicate the

degree to which each statement applies to your thoughts and feelings about engaging students

in self-assessment of their own English oral performance by circling one of the numbers

corresponding to each of the following statements. There is no right or wrong statement. The

degree of your agreement to the statements is expressed as: Strongly agree (SA) Agree

(A) undecided (UD) Disagree (DA) strongly disagree (SDA

S. No Statements

1. The main purposes of classroom assessment is to

check whether or not students have mastered what

they have learned


indentifying the strengths and weakness of the

learners


helping learners to improve their learning

4. Students should participate in assessing their own

work

5. Learners’ self-assessment means students marking

their own test or assignment using answer keys

provided by the instructor

6. Learners’ self-assessment is a technique of

assessment where students participate in setting

criteria and scoring of their own performance


checking learners’ progress against the course

objectives

SA A UD DA SDA

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

244

S. No Statements


providing feedback to students about their own

performance

9. Learners’ Self-assessment means the learner

checking how well s/he understood a topic like

while reading a material or listening to a lecture


grading and categorising students


getting information for the teacher on the way s/he

teaches

12. Participating in assessment scheme helps students

to improve their approaches to learning

13. If students assess their own work, they would be

able to recognize their errors easily

14. Learners are most likely to provide inflated

information on their own performance

15. Involving learners in assessing their own learning

outcomes is a good way of providing feedback on

their own performance

16. Assessing their own work makes students feel

responsible for their learning

17. Getting students to assess their own work is a way

of solving cheating problems and disruptiveness

18. It’s the instructor’s job to evaluate students’

performance

19. Assessment is one aspect of the learning process in

which students should take part

SA A UD DA SDA

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

245

S. No Statements

20. Participating in assessing quality of their

performance has little effect on improving students

learning

21. I consider the real assessment to be assessment that

is done by the teacher

22. Assessing themselves makes learners more aware of

what they need to know in the subject

23. Learners’ self-assessment enables them to

understand the quality of performance expected of

them

24. Students assess their own performance honestly

25. If students are to assess their own work, they would

get bored

26. Learners’ self-assessment is an important part of the

teaching learning process

27. It is difficult for students to understand the

assessment criteria

28. Assessing their own work improves the social

climate of the teaching learning process

29. Students’ self-assessment can count to final grade

30. Assessing themselves makes them think what and

how much to do to achieve the learning objectives

31. Learners’ self-assessment is just putting burden on

students and teachers

32. learners’ self-assessment is the way of increasing

students’ participation in learning activities

SA A UD DA SDA

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Thank you once again

246

7 Appendix 7 Training Material (learners’ Handout)

Learning to Self-Assess

_________________________________________________________________

A Material Prepared For Training Students on Learners’ Self-assessment of

English Oral Performance (as part of research instrument)

Feb. 2011

Addis Ababa

247

Table of content

Topics page

Classroom Self-assessment

Overview……………………………………………………………………………………. 1

Learning Objectives………………………………………………………………………….1

Introduction

Objectives………………………………….………………………………………………..2

Activity I: Expectation and learning mode………………………………………….2

Section 1 Meaning and purpose of assessment

Activity I: Meaning and purpose of Assessment……………………………………3

Activity II: Who should do the assessment? ..............................................................4

Activity III: Self-assessment......................................................................................5

Section 2: Identification of components of oral performance

Objectives .......................................................................................................................6

Activity I: Major Constructs of Oral Skill........................................................................6

Activity II: Specific Elements of Oral Skill.....................................................................8

Activity III: Description...................................................................................................8

Section 3: Developing Criteria

Objectives......................................................................................................................10

Activity II: Scoring Techniques.....................................................................................10

Activity III: Writing the Rubrics....................................................................................12

248

Section 4: Applying the Criteria and Feedback

Objectives............................................................................................................................14

Activity I: Assessing others............................................................................................15

Activity II: Assessing own oral performance.................................................................15

Section 5: Setting Goals and Action Plans

Objectives............................................................................................................................16

Activity I: Reflection..................................................................................................16

Activity II writing goals and action plans..................................................................16

249


Overview

From the learner-centred approach point of view, self-assessment is the major component of

learning process which promotes active learning. It is an assessment technique which enables

learners to participate in the assessment process including setting assessment criteria and

scoring their own performance.

The purpose of this training is to create and/or increase your awareness on issues in self-

assessment and develop your ability of assessing your own English language oral performance

so that you participate in the assessment process meaningfully. This is believed to help you

improve the quantity and quality of your learning of the course.

This material is prepared for the trainees (students) to be used during the training. It is

organised into five sections that will be integrated with the Spoken English course contents.

These sections are I) introduction II) identifying elements of oral performance, III) setting

criteria, IV) applying the criteria and giving feedback and V) setting goals and action plans.

Each section has objectives and contains activities and tasks that need to be done individually,

in pair or small group.

The training will take the form of participatory and active learning methods. During the

sessions, you are expected to be active participant and interact in pair and small group

discussions to carry out the activities and tasks. However it does not mean that the suggested

activities and tasks are hard and fast rules; the instructor could use her/his own ways that s/he

finds appropriate.

The material could be covered within seven to nine hours (an hour/week) of additional time to

schedule of the course.

Learning Objectives The overall objective of this training is firstly to help you understand the meaning of self-

assessment and its significance in improving learning outcomes and secondly help you to

develop your ability and skills of assessing your own oral performance fairly and realistically.

Specifically, by the end of the training you will be able to:

250

understand the main purposes and benefits of SA

develop criteria for assessing English oral performance

determine quality of their own performance responsibly

design strategies for improving their own learning outcomes

Introduction (1 hr) This section introduces the training by providing the general objectives, what is included in

and how you would go about it.

Objectives:

At the end of this section you will:

explain the main objectives of the training

discuss and agree on the procedures and modes of learning proposed

Activity Expectation and learning mode

Task 1 What do you expect to gain from this training?

1. The instructor will introduce you to the training. Listen to the instructor and

look at the table of content of your material

2. Think about and list down the knowledge and skill you expect and/or want

to get from the training.

3. Join the person by your side and compare your lists. If you find differences,

discuss and improve your list if you like.

4. Look at the list of objectives on page 2. Are there any similarities between

your list and the list in the learning objectives?

5. Discuss it with the instructor

Task 2 How do you like the training to be carried out

1. Try to remember and list the active learning techniques you know and used

in classrooms. Which of them are interesting and which are not?

2. Form a group of three or four and make one comprehensive list of active

learning methods

251

3. Discuss the advantage and disadvantages of each technique and suggest

how the problems can be minimised to be used during this training

4. Share your idea with the whole class

Section 1 Meaning and Purposes of Assessment

Objectives:

At the end of this section you will:

Explain meaning of assessment

list the main purposes of classroom assessment

identify the main features (process) of assessment

discuss who should assess learners’ work

define SA

tell the benefits and problems of SA

Activity I Meaning and purpose of assessment

Task 1 What is assessment?

1. How do you define assessment? Following are some persons’ description

of assessment. Read the statements and put or X mark in the box to say it

is correct or wrong. If you say it is wrong (marked it X), reason out.

a. Assessment is measuring the ability and skills of students

b. Assessment means tests or exams we take

c. Assessment is the process of gathering information about

students’ learning behaviour

d. Assessment is evaluating the quality of students’ performance

e. Assessment includes designing task/performance, setting criteria,

to determine the quality of the work using the criteria and

judging the value

2. Identify one that best applies to your sense, or write your own or improve

one of the above statements.

3. Share your definition in pair and then as a class

252

Task 2 Why assessment?

1. What do you think is the instructors’ purpose of assessing their students?

Below are what some people think about the purpose of assessment. Read

the sentences and show the extent to which you agree with the people by

writing SA (strongly agree), A (agree), DA (disagree) or SDA (strongly

disagree) in the boxes. If you have two or more the same responses e.g.,

you strongly agree to two or three statements, try to rank them.

a. assessment is done primarily to grade students achievements

b. Instructors do assessment to accomplish their duty

c. To provide feedback to students on their learning

d. To maintain students’, teachers’ and schools accountability

e. To check effectiveness of a program

f. To identify good and poor students

g. To guide students improve their approach to learning

h. To let students identify their own strengths and weaknesses

i. To check whether or not the objectives of the course are achieved

j. To keep students working hard

k. To evaluate the effectiveness of the instructors

2. Share your response in a group of three or four. Give reasons for your

responses. Afterwards, you will share and discuss it with the whole class

Activity II: Who should do the assessment?

Task 1 Your experience

1. Think back about your experience of assessments in schools. Who are

involved in carrying out assessment?

2. Share your experience with the persons by your side and then with the

class

Task 2 Vote on your feet

Who do you think should be involved in the process of assessing your

performance? Four parties are suggested to be involved in assessing a student’s

work: teacher, school/external body, student him/herself, peers.

253

1. Express your opinion about who should assess students’ performance by

moving to the corner of the room that represents the party you vote for. If

you want to vote for two parties, draw a line between corners and stand at

the middle ground, and if you fail to decide, remain seated.

2. Explain the reason of your choice and listen to others’. If you change your

mind during the activity, e.g., after listening to others’ reasoning, you can

change your place and move to another corner.

3. Think about assessing your own work or performance, how do you feel?

Activity III: Self-assessment

Task 1 Describing Self-assessment

In task 1, activity II of this section, you have described assessment as a process of

gathering information on students learning; and it includes setting criteria and

using the criteria to measure the quality of the performance. Having this in mind,

1. Individually, try to describe self-assessment

2. In a group of four or five, share your descriptions and write the

comprehensive one

3. Share it with the whole class

Task 2 Beliefs about self-assessment

How do you think about assessing your own learning outcomes (work or

performance). Think about its advantage and disadvantage, problems and benefits.

Below are statements of the beliefs held by persons about self-assessment

1. Form a group of four or five and see if you agree or disagree with each of

the statements and why. You also can add your own beliefs that is not

mentioned

a. Assessment is the duty and responsibility of the teacher, so students

should not be involved in assessment

b. Assessing oneself helps to clearly identify weaknesses and strengths

of oneself

c. Assessing oneself is difficult and time consuming

d. Teachers/school do not trust students assessing themselves

254

e. Students do not want to assess their own or their classmates’ work

f. Students cannot assess themselves because they cannot be sure

about what is correct and what is wrong

g. Teachers are not willing to involve students in the assessment

process

h. Involving students in the assessment of their own performance

motivates them to make effort to improve their result

i. Students do not assess themselves realistically and trustfully, they

are selfish

j. Students cannot do self assessment because they do not have the

skill, ability and experience of assessing

k. Self-assessment can minimise students’ complaints about grading,

and this improves student-teacher relationship

l. Doing self-assessment is doing the job of the teacher

m. If given the opportunity and do practices, students are willing and

able to assess their own performance

2. Now discuss and decide whether or not you want to use self assessment in

your spoken English II classroom. If you decide to use, think how the

problems can be alleviated and the disadvantages can be minimised

3. Share your solutions with the whole class

Section 2: Constructs of Oral Performance (1 ½ hr.)

Objectives

At the end of this section you will be able to

describe characteristics of good English oral performance

identify the specific linguistic elements (language skills, sub skills and competences)

that are constructs of English oral performance

identify the non linguistics components of English oral performance

describe each of the specific linguistic and non linguistic elements to be assessed in

oral performance

255

Activity I: Major constructs of oral skill

Task 1 Your perception of good and poor oral performance

You must have listened to variety of English oral performances, e.g., instructors

lecture, classroom presentations, interviews, conversations, chatting friends, etc.

both physically and on TV and radio.

Try to remember one oral performance you liked and another one you did not like.

1. Think about why you liked the one and did not like the other. Jot down your

reasons

2. Join in a group of three and describe the performances you liked and did not

like and explain your reasons for liking and disliking

3. In your group list down the things you think are characteristics of

good/effective English oral performance.

4. Pick a person to present your suggestion to the class

Task 2 Linguistic skills: Accuracy, Fluency and Complexity

Fluency, accuracy and complexity are the major linguistic constructs (features) of

an oral performance. Fluency refers to the ability to produce spoken language with

ease; or the ability to produce continuous speech easily without causing

comprehension difficulties or a breakdown of communication．Accuracy is the

degree of correctness or deviation from the grammatical norm (error). A person’s

ability to use more advanced rich and diversified linguistic elements is referred to

as complexity; for instance, the person’s ability to use longer sentences; variety of

words to express the same idea, etc.

1. Now in a group of three or four members, discuss and try to understand

what fluency, accuracy and complexity means. For instance, if a speaker

uses many grammatically wrong sentences, is it a problem of fluency,

accuracy or complexity? And what about if s/he uses short, disconnected

and simple sentences?

256

2. Which of these elements do you think is more important and which is not?

Rank them according to their degree of importance you think and explain

your reason.

3. Present your result to the class. If the members cannot agree unanimously,

one can keep his/her own position and explain to the class.

Task 3 Non-linguistic skills

1. Think of doing an oral task. In addition to the above mentioned linguistic

skills, what other skills you need to have to do effective oral performance?

2. Try to recall your knowledge of writing skills course and list down the non-

linguistic skills required for good/effective written/oral performance.

3. compare your list in pairs, discuss and improve it

4. volunteer to read your list to the class

5. listen to the others’ and improve yours, if needed

Task 4 Strategic Skills: compensation

If you feel difficulty while you are doing oral performance what can you do?

For example if you lack appropriate word or expression what measure do you

take? Discuss in your small group

Task 5 Strategic skills: managing the stage

In addition to the strategy you use to fill (compensate) your linguistic skills,

what other strategy you need to use to help your interlocutor or audience

understand you easily? Does your voice matter? What about your manner?

Discuss in your small group.

Activity II: Specific Elements of Oral Skill

As you discussed above, speaking is one of the major skills that involves the linguistic skills

(accuracy, fluency, and complexity) and other non-linguistic skills. Oral skill requires the

knowledge of these elements and the ability to assemble and use these components during

performance.

1. Think by yourself the specific language elements and other competencies you should

have to accomplish certain oral performances e.g., classroom presentation, interviews,

257

public speaking, etc. For example, is it necessary to know words and different

expressions? Do you need the skill of organizing your idea before speaking?

2. Think as many of language elements as you can and list them down.

3. Which of them do you think are related to fluency and which are related to accuracy?

4. In addition to the language element, what other additional techniques you need to make

effective performance? List them down under different column.

5. Make a group of four or five and compare your lists. Refine and produce one

comprehensive list of the elements. Then, try to put the items on your list in order of

importance as you feel

6. Voluntarily, Present your result to the class

Activity III: Description

Task 1 Identify errors

Below are extract from records/transcripts of conversations between persons in different

situations. In a group of three or four, listen/read each of the extracts and:

1. See if there is any error. Jot down/underline area where you think has error.

2. Identify the kind of the error committed; for example is it error of verb tense or the

subject and verb agreement (grammar), wrong use of word (vocabulary), irrelevant

idea (content), disordered ideas (organization) or any other problem you feel.

3. Which of the errors cause problem of understanding and which are acceptable?

4. What do you think is the cause of the error, can you correct it?

5. Compare your answers with other groups and present to the class

Two students are doing their mathematics homework sitting in open place in a campus

A: Look how fat that woman is

B: Yes, she’s very fat. Even she can’t walk properly, lots of water coming out of her

face

258

A: She walks little and stands now and then

B: When she gets tired, she puts her two hands on her waist

A: Now stop staring at her; let’s do our business

B: Sure, where are we?

A: We’ve started solving problem number 2

B: oh, this question is very heavy, we can’t solve it

A: ok, we’ll ask friends to help us, now let’s go to the next,

They are in a cafe talking about personal things

A: Where are your parents?

B: Nekemte. My father worked in the zonal education office since 2007 and my mom

work in the hospital

A: i see..i mean.. graduating wanna go back there?

B: of course, you see... i wish i teach in Wollega university, but.... i can not be

confidential

A: what, why you need to be confidential? I mean i did’n get you

B: er.... i mean, you know... to be assigned to teach in a university, i should have to

graduate with very good GPA ...must be above... may be 3.5 can i score this then?

I’m not sure.....

Bola has applied for a job and is being interviewed by a recruiting committee

Chairperson: welcome Bola, we’ve seen your CV and we want to ask you some

questions. Feel free to answer our questions. Good luck!

Interviewer: can you tell us briefly the effects of HIV/AIDS on the society?

Bola: ok thanks, hiv aids, yes, hiv aids is a disease. It is emmm.., it is caused by virus. It is

abbreviation for human immune virus. Aids... hiv aids has many effects. It has no

vaccination or treatment. It kills young and adults who are productive. Therefore ....

therefore ..emmm it causes the decrease of production. Parents and relatives spend their

money and time to take care of the patients. It is transmitted in many ways. many ways

259

emm... for example unsafe sexual practice, traditional practices. The traditional practice

are circumcision, polygamy etc. we must stop aids thank you

Task 2 Describe the errors

The instructor will guide you to form groups and s/he assigns you to work on one of the

elements or aspects of English oral performance.

1. Explain what is meant by that element. For example what does it mean by grammatical

error, problem of content, problem of vocabulary or organization, etc.?

2. Illustrate by giving your own examples

3. Find a group that is working with the same element as yours and discuss your answers.

Improve if you need

4. select a spokesperson to present the result of your discussion

Section 3: Developing Criteria (1 ½ hr.)

Objectives

At the end of this section you will be able to:

identify the holistic and the analytic scoring techniques

describe each of the scoring techniques

develop rubrics against which each of the elements of oral performance could

be assessed following the analytic scoring method

Activity I: Scoring Techniques

Task 1

1. If you are asked to mark and score your classmates’ paper of objective types

test (m.choice, t/f, or matching items) how do you go about it? Share ideas with

persons by your sides and tell to the instructor.

2. Do you score subjective tests, e.g., written performances like a paragraph or an

essay and oral performance like speaking on a topic or interviews in the same

way as you do for the objective type? Why/why not? Discuss in pairs

Task 2

260

Instructors were asked the techniques they use to score written and oral

performances. The instructors’ responses are grouped in to four

Group A: Error counters

These instructors count any kind of error committed in the work done and deduce it from the

total mark assigned to the work

Group B: Holistics (impressionists)

This group reads or listens to/watches the performance as a whole and then give value based

on the impression they derived from the work as a whole

Group C: Analysts

Group C use a marking scheme. That means they first identify the specific aspect of language

they want to assess. Next, they decide the weight of each aspect. Then, they write rubrics

(criteria) which helps them to decide the amount of mark or value they should give for each

aspect

Group D Purpose concerned

The last group gives mark based on the purpose of the task performance. Like group B, this

group also reads or listens to/watches the performance as a whole and decide the extent to

which the performance achieved its purpose. For example, if the purpose of a speaker/writer is

to show the differences and similarity of two things by comparing and contrasting, the value is

given based on how effectively s/he achieved this purpose.

Form a group of three or four and read all the scoring techniques used by the groups of

instructors.

1. Discuss the strength and weakness/advantages and disadvantages of

each technique

2. If you were to choose one among the four, which one do you opt for?

Why?

3. Present the result of your discussion to the class

Activity II: Writing the rubrics

Now you are going to assess your classmates’ and your own oral performance using

the analysts scoring technique (analytic scoring). Remember that in task 1, activity II

of section I, you have described assessment as a process of gathering information on

261

students learning; and it includes setting criteria and using the criteria to measure the

quality of the performance. Therefore, you start the assessment procedure by

developing the marking scheme. Marking scheme is simply a form that guides you on

what and how to assess. It contains the elements and aspects of the performance to be

assessed, the weighting it counts for and detailed description (rubrics) of the

performance that helps you to decide the value that particular performance deserves.

1. Form group following the instructor’s instruction

2. Look at the list of specific elements of oral performance you developed in

activity II of section 2. The instructor will assign you to work on one of these

oral skills

3. Assume that you are going to score a performance out of 100%. Decide the

weight (percentage) you allot to the item you are assigned to work on

4. Decide the number of standards (levels of quality) you want to specify.

5. Decide the value of each standard (level of quality).

For example if you are working with grammar and, you decided to set three

standards, you may set the descriptor of the highest quality as ‘very few

grammatical errors, clearly understandable’ and the least as ‘ lots of

grammatical error, very difficult to understand’. Then if the weight you

allotted for grammar is 20%, it means that highest quality performance

deserves 20% and the least quality performance may deserve 5% or less. You

may also use intervals like 15% to 20%, 10% to15% etc.

6. Now using the form below, develop a marking scheme for the component of

oral skills you are assigned to work on.

7. When you finish, find a group working on your element and compare your

marking schemes. Discuss and make any improvement

8. Now the two groups have got one marking scheme. Pick a spokesperson and

present your scheme to the class. You may consider comments and suggestions

from the class and improve your rubric.

9. Remember that all the schemes developed by the class for different elements

will be combined on a single form and used to assess your classmates and your

own oral performance.

262

Sample Working Form for a group Form A : Performance/Outcome: ___________________________Name (ID): _________

Date: ______________________Rated by: Self __ __ teacher ____________

Form B: Performance/Outcome: ___________________________Name (ID): __________

Date: ______________________Rated by: Self __ __ Teacher ______

Section 4: Applying Criteria, giving and using Feedback (3 hrs.)

Objectives

After this section you will:

Practice scoring their peers’ and their own English oral performances using the

rubrics (scoring guide) they have developed

Give feedback to each other

Element weight descriptors points score comment

Grammar (tense, agreements, etc)

20%

Very few errors, clearly understandable

17-20

Few grammatically correct utterances, very difficult to understand

2-5

Components Weight

descriptors point

s

Score comment

Content

(relevance and

adequacy)

(30%)

Has little or no relation and limited

ideas

5

very relevant and comprehensive

information

30

263

Use feedback from peers and instructor to improve their scoring

Activity I: Assessing others

Task 1 Scoring a video recorded performance

The instructor will play you a video recorded performance. Watch the video for

the first time.

1. Get the marking form ready and

2. With the instructor, decide on which elements of the performance you

want to assess and the weighting you allot to each element

3. Watch the video again and score the performance focusing only on the

kill you want to score. After you scored you can write comment about

the performance in the space provided

Task 2 Feed back

1. Compare your score in pair or group of three and discuss on the

differences: justify yours and listen to the others’. Improve if you are

convinced.

2. Listen to the instructor’s scoring and compare to yours. Is it very

different or slightly different?

4. Watch the video again and see if you have anything to improve.

5. Do you think that it is possible to avoid differences in such kind

(subjective) assessment? Why?

Task 3 Scoring classmate’s oral performance

Now you are going to score your classmates’ performance. Get the scoring

form ready (the instructor may provide you with the form)

1. With the instructor, decide the elements to be assessed and the

weighting

2. Attend to your classmates’ performance and score it

Task 4 Peer Feedback

1. Join in groups of three or four and compare and contrast your scores:

discuss on your difference and give reasons to justify. You can improve

your scores if convinced during the discussion

264

2. Listen to the instructor’s scoring and compare with yours. You can ask

questions or justification if you are not satisfied.

Activity II Assessing own oral performance

Task 1 Scoring

Now you score your own oral performance by watching the video record. Get

the form ready and discuss with the instructor what aspect of the performance

you score. Then watch and score. You could watch the video twice.

Task 2 Feedback

The instructor will show you her/his score of your performance. Compare it

with yours and see the differences and similarities. Ask any question or

justification, if you need. Remember that the main purpose of assessment is to

help you improve your learning, and you are involved in assessing yourself to

contribute to this purpose. The teacher is also doing this by indicating your

strengths and weaknesses so that you devise your own strategy (way) of

improving your learning.

Section 5: Setting Goals and Action Plans (1 hr.)

Objectives

At the end of this section, you will be able to:

identify their strengths and weaknesses of their oral performances

write a major and two/three specific goals to improve their weakness

describe the actions they will take to achieve the goals

Activity I: Reflection 1. Think back your self assessment and reflect on what you have done well

and what went wrong. Write down as many specific points as you can about

your strengths and weaknesses.

For example,

I have put my ideas in logical orders but the expressions I used to move

from one to the other were not appropriate.

265

I used relevant ideas but I failed to express the idea using the right

words

My grammar is good but I usually misuse the modal verbs like should,

would, have to, etc.

2. Select two or three of your weaknesses that you need to improve soon

3. Move in the class and find a student/s who has/have got the same problem

as yours. (if there are many with similar problem, you can break into groups

of three or four)

Activity II writing goals and action plans

In your group or pair, discuss on your problems

a) What do you think is/are the source of the problem

b) to what extent you need to improve (your goal)

c) what things they need to do to improve it (action)

Write down your goals and actions in specific clear and achievable

sentences

For, example,

Goals:

- I will improve my knowledge and use of perfect tenses

- I will improve the way I conclude my speech and

Action plans:

- I read grammar books on perfect tenses

- I practice using perfect tenses in the appropriate situation with friends

- I discuss with Mr. X on smart ways of concluding a speech, presentation,

interview, etc.

- I practice with my classmates

266

Appendix 8 Training Material (Instructor’s Guide)

Learning to Self-Assess

_________________________________________________________________

A Material Prepared for Training Students on Learners’ Self-assessment of

English Oral Performance (as part of research instrument)

Feb. 2011

Addis Ababa

267

Table of content

Topics page


An Overview…….…………………………………………………………………………. 1

Training Objectives…….....………………………………………………………………….1

Some General Tips……………………………………………….………………..…………2

Introduction

Objectives……..……………………………………………………………………………..3

Activity I: Expectations and learning mode …..………………….………………….3

Section 1 Meaning and purposes of assessment

Activity II: Meaning and purpose of Assessment……………………………………4

Activity III: who should do the assessment? ………………………………………..4

Activity IV: Self-assessment........................................................................................5

Content information............................................................................................................5

Section 2: Identification of components of oral performance

Objectives ..........................................................................................................................6

Activity I: Effective English oral performance...................................................................7

Activity II: Specific Elements of Oral Skill........................................................................7

Activity III: Description......................................................................................................8

Content information............................................................................................................9

Section 3: Developing Criteria

Objectives..........................................................................................................................9

Activity I: Scoring Techniques..........................................................................................10

Activity II: Writing the Rubrics.........................................................................................10

268

Content information..……………………………………………………………………11

Section 4: Applying the Criteria and Feedback

Objectives..............................................................................................................................14

Activity I: Assessing others..............................................................................................14

Activity II: Assessing own oral performance...................................................................15

Content information...............................................................................................................16

Section 5: Setting Goals and Action Plans

Objectives.............................................................................................................................16

Activity I: Reflection....................................................................................................16

Activity II writing goals and action plans....................................................................16

269


I. An Overview

From the learner-centred approach point of view, self-assessment is the major component of

the teaching learning process which promotes active learning. Self-assessment (SA) is an

assessment technique which enables learners to participate in the assessment process including

the setting of assessment criteria and scoring their own performance. However, learners need

some training and exercise before they are involved in the actual assessment.

This training is designed for second year university students majoring in English to help them

understand issues related to SA and develop their ability of assessing their own English

language oral performance fairly and responsibly. It is aimed at enabling them participate in

the whole process of assessment i.e., making decision about the explicit criteria of

performance and making judgement about quality of the performance.

This trainer’s guide is intended to help trainers (instructors) to accomplish their role of

facilitation successfully. It is organised into five sections that will be integrated with the

Spoken English course contents. These sections are I) introduction II) identifying elements of

oral performance, III) setting criteria, IV) applying the criteria and feedback and V) setting

goals and action plans. Each section has objectives and contains activities and tasks. Where it

is necessary, content information is provided at the end of sections so that you can refer to it.

It is intended to be presented using participatory and interactive methods like brainstorming,

pair or small group discussion, vote on your feet, etc. However it does not mean that the

suggested activities and procedures are hard and fast rules; the instructor could use her/his

own ways that s/he finds appropriate. It could be covered within seven — nine hours (an

hour/week) of additional time to the schedule of the course.

II. Training Objectives

The overall goals of this training is to create and/or increase the students’ awareness on the

meaning and significance of self-assessment in improving students learning outcomes, and to

270

develop their ability and skills of assessing their own oral performance fairly and realistically

so that they can participate in the assessment process meaningfully.

Specifically, by the end of the training the students will be able to

understand the main purposes and benefits of SA

develop criteria for assessing English oral performance

determine quality of their own performance responsibly

design strategies for improving their own learning outcomes

Some General Tips

The role of the trainer (instructor) is to organise and facilitate

situations in which the students learn by themselves, not to tell

everything

Students learn better when the situation is conducive and the tasks are

interesting, not monotonous

Always try to begin a session in soothing funny like jokes or other

icebreakers

Many of the tasks in this material require students to do in pairs or

groups. Group works are effective techniques, need care

Use different ways of group formation like alphabets,

birthdates interval numbers etc. so that a student gets chance

of meeting different groups

Round and supervise group discussions

Though students should learn by themselves, they obviously

need your help, so during group discussions, visit groups,

participate and contribute to their discussion. (even some

groups may need you badly)

271

During the whole class discussion, encourage all groups, not

only the volunteers

Introduction (1 hr)

This introductory part is intended to lay ground by providing the students with an overview of

the training. It gives the general objectives, what is included in and how they would go about

it.

Objectives:

At the end of this section the students will:

explain the main objectives of the training

discuss and decide on how to go about it

Activity I: Expectations and learning mode

This activity is to arose the interest and curiosity of the learners by letting them

aware of what and how thing happen during the training so that they feel

responsible and set up their mind from the starting

Task 1 expectations

Distribute the student’s material

Introduce the topic (Classroom Self-assessment) and mention that you are

discussing the topic of SA for some weeks together with the contents of the

course to help them learn how to self-assess.

Ask what they expect to gain from the training

Guide them through the task and finally explain the general and specific

objectives of the training

Task 2 Learning mode

In this task, help the learners to remember a number of active learning

techniques and identify their pros and cons

During the whole class discussion, focus on how group discussion can be

used effectively

272

Section 1: Meaning and Purpose of Assessment

Objectives:

At the end of this section the students will:

Explain meaning of assessment

list the main purposes of classroom assessment

identify the main features (process) of assessment

discuss who should assess learners’ work

define SA

tell the benefits and problems of SA

Activity I: Meaning and Purposes of Assessment

Guide them through tasks 1 and 2

Ask some volunteers their responses and reasons for thinking that way

Direct students attention to statements d & e to get the intended meaning of

assessment and statements c, g, h & i for purpose of assessment

Activity II: Who should do the assessment?

Before this session, write these four words/phrases: teacher, school/external body,

student him/herself, peers, on separate sheets of paper and post it in the four

corners of the room.

Tell the students that this activity asks them to express their opinion about who

should assess students’ performance

In task 1, let them share ideas and experiences about who usually carry out

assessment. In task 2, Point out that each of the four corners of the room

represents a party suggested to assess learners’ work, and every one express her/his

idea about who should assess learners learning outcomes by moving to the corner

that represents the party

Make clear that one can vote for two parties by drawing a line between the corners

and standing at the middle ground between the two corners; and if one could not

decide, s/he remains seated.

273

Explain that after the students have moved to the area of their choice, you will ask

for them to explain why they feel that way.

Tell participants that they can change their mind and move their position at any

time during the activity, for example, after listening to others’ reasoning.

Have the students return to their seats for general discussion. Ask them whether or

not they like to self-assess, why/why not.

Summarise that different parties can do assessment for different purposes, but in a

classroom assessment where the main purpose is to improve learning, learners

should participate in the assessment process and assess themselves and peers to

improve the quality and quantity of their learning outcomes.

Activity III: Self-assessment

Task 1 describing self-assessment

Remind them the definition given to assessment. Ask students to describe self-

assessment based on that definition first individually then in their groups

Let them discuss and write down their description

Ask two or three volunteer groups to present their answers to the class, and

give opportunity for the others if they have anything to add

Pool their ideas together and finally guide them to see that self-assessment

means participating in the whole process including setting standards,

developing criteria and evaluating one’s own performance using the criteria

responsibly; and this has a number of advantages of which the major one is the

improvement of learning.

Task 2 beliefs about self-assessment

Mention that in this task they are going to express their belief about self-

assessment

In their group, guide them to read all the statements and see whether or not they

agree with the statements

Let them explain their reasons and discuss as whole class

274

Summarise that some of these beliefs come from our experience of the

conventional role of the teacher and students and direct their attention to the

positive aspects of self-assessment and ways of minimizing the problems.

Content information

1. The main objective of the training is to help learners participate in the assessment

process of their own English oral performance realistically and fairly. It does so by

enabling them to identify and define the major and specific constructs of oral

performance, develop the assessment criteria and apply it. It also helps them to practice

recognising weaknesses and setting action plans for improving their weaknesses

2. Assessment is a systematic procedure for obtaining information to describe or better

understand about learners’ learning outcomes to make judgments and decisions about

characteristics of the learners or programs

3. Assessment can be carried out by teachers/instructors, schools or external bodies for

different purposes like diagnosis, placement, promotion, certification, etc. However,

the main aim of classroom assessments is to improve the quality and quantity of

students’ learning outcomes. To achieve this purpose of classroom assessment,

students must be involved in the whole process

4. Typical process of assessment includes making decisions about the explicit criteria and

standards of performance expected and making judgments about the quality of the

performance in relation to these standards.

5. SA can be defined as a form of assessment in which students are involved in

identifying standards and/or criteria to apply to their work and making judgements

about the quality of their own performance and the extent to which they have met the

standards.

6. SA helps learners to be clear with the training objectives and the standards of

performance expected of them. This is believed to have many benefits. Researches

have shown that it improves cognitive and non cognitive learning outcomes. For

example, it develops higher order cognitive skills, fosters deep approaches to learning,

develops reflective skills, sharpens critical abilities, increases autonomy, increases on-

task behaviour, increases commitment to subsequent performance and increased

participation reduces distrust and disruptive behaviours

275

7. Problems related to SA are students’ lack of skill and ability of assessing and

unfairness in assessing themselves. The other problems are related to learners’ and

teachers’ conceptions of conventional roles of learners and teachers. These problems

can be solved by training and through experience.

Section 2: Constructs of oral performance (1 ½ hr.)

Objectives

Completing this section the learners will be able to

describe characteristics of good English oral performance

identify the specific linguistic elements (language skills, sub skills and

competences) that are constructs of English oral performance

identify the non linguistics components of English oral performance

describe each of the specific linguistic and non linguistic elements to be

assessed in oral performance

Activity I: Effective English oral performance

Guide them through task 1

Invite volunteer groups to tell the class what they think are characteristics of

good/effective English oral performance.

Write their expressions on the board; they may use words like interesting,

attractive, understandable, etc.; or may use some specific characteristics like

correct grammar, fluent speech, related ideas, well organised etc. to describe a

good/effective oral performance. This much is enough for this task, and to lead

them to the next task, explain that oral performance basically involves two major

skills; linguistic and non-linguistic. The linguistic skill includes fluency, accuracy

and complexity.

Guide them working through task 2,

During the whole class discussion help them to understand the skills and

competences the terms fluency, accuracy and complexity refers to. If need be,

explain briefly with examples.

276

Make clear that all the three elements are equally important for effective oral

performance, but you do not focus on complexity in this training.

In task 3, 4 and 5 help them to remember the non-linguistic skill (organisation and

content) they learned in their writing course and help them to understand the

compensation strategies and delivery strategies (they could use different

expressions to mean content, organisation and/or delivery technique).

Activity II: Specific Elements of Oral Skill

Remind them that speaking is one of the major skills that involves other specific

elements, and in this activity, they are going to identify and explain these elements

During the class discussion, make columns with the heading: fluency accuracy,

organization, content, strategies.

Invite volunteer groups to read out their list. When they read an item, ask under

which column to put, and ask the class whether they agree or not.

Regarding the rank of importance, explain that all are still equally important

because there cannot be an oral performance devoid of one or the other element.

However, the attention to be give to each element depends on contexts and

purposes. When friends chat about personal matters, for instance, things like

grammatical accuracy, relevance of content and sequence of ideas are not usually

attended to. In assessment also you do not give equal attention to all the elements;

some may be ignored and some may be given a little attention depending on the

purpose of that particular assessment.

Activity III: Description

Task 1 Identifying errors

To help student do this task, it would be better if you get the conversations

recorded and students listen them rather than reading. Anyway, adjust the

kind of help you provide then to the format you are able to use.

Guide the learners to answer questions 1 to 4 for all the three extracts (A to

C) turn by turn beginning from A

277

Write their answers for each extract, guiding them to the appropriate

answers. In the first extract (A) the major problem is lack of vocabulary.

For example, “ lots of water coming out of her face” is to say she is

sweating. “ is very heavy” is to say difficult. In B the problem is grammar;

e.g., “worked in the zonal education office since 2007” is to say has been

working in the zonal education office since 2007. This makes understanding

difficult because the listener is confused whether or not the father is still

working in the hospital. In C the major problems are a) irrelevance of

information (content), b) disorganised ideas and c) lack of fluency

(unnecessary repetition of words and taking unnecessarily longer pause).

Task 2 Describe the error

Divide the class in to groups so that the number of groups equals twice the

number of specific elements of oral skill: grammar, vocabulary, content,

organisation, fluency and strategies.

assign one item to two groups by lottery system or any way you like

guide them to work through the task and provide assistance where they

need

when a group presents its discussion of an element to the whole class,

encourage all the other groups to participate and share ideas

summarise and write the description of each element clearly on the board so

that everyone understands or copy down

Content information

1. Fluency can be defined as the ability to produce spoken language with ease; or the

ability to speak with a good but not necessarily perfect command of intonation,

vocabulary ，and gram mar ；or the ability to produce continuous speech without

causing comprehension difficulties or a breakdown of communication．

2. Accuracy is the degree of correctness or deviation from the norm (error)

3. The specific elements of oral performance are content, organisation, vocabulary,

fluency, pronunciation, grammar, strategy of delivery and timing

278

- Content is the relevance to and adequacy or comprehensiveness of ideas

raised in relation to the requirements of the task performance

- Organisation is the coherence and cohesion of the ideas

- Vocabulary is the appropriateness and correct use of lexical items

- Grammar is the degree of accuracy (acceptability) of the linguistic

elements (verbs, nouns)

- Pronunciation is the intelligibility and consistency with which words and

phrases are said

- Delivery strategy includes eye contact, confidence, manners, position, use

of non verbal languages, voice quality (loud enough) etc.

- Timing is the ability of budgeting the time available properly and using it

4. Compensation strategies include using ellipsis, rephrasing, repetition,, fillers and

hesitation devices, borrowing words and phrases from other languages they know,

or engaging the listener in collaborative meaning-making.ies of delivery for oral

task

Section 3: Developing Criteria (1 ½ hr)

Objectives

At the end of this section the students will be able to:

identify the holistic and the analytic scoring techniques

describe each of the scoring techniques

develop rubrics against which each of the elements of oral performance could

be assessed following the analytic scoring method

Activity I: Scoring Techniques

Guide them to answer questions 1 and 2 in task 1. Their response to

number 1 should be something like “prepare answer key and decide on the

weight of each item then mark using the key”.

279

Elicit their response to number 2 and let the be aware that it is impossible

to score subjective assessments like written and oral performance in the

same way we score the objective ones because it is very difficult to prepare

a precise answer key. Therefore we need different scoring techniques.

In task 2, get them read the four suggested procedures thoroughly and have

clear idea. You may need to explain each scoring technique before they

answer the questions

Listen to their response and write the strengths/advantages and weaknesses/

disadvantages on the board and discuss if need be.

Ask which one they choose and why.

Mention that you (the class) are going to use the analytic technique. Reason

out if they are not convinced.

Activity II: Writing the Rubrics

tell the students that in this activity you (the class) develop marking scheme

they use to score oral performances of their classmates and their own

because they follow the analytic technique of scoring

group the class into a number that is twice the number of elements of oral

skill

assign an element to two groups by lottery system or the way you like

tell them that they are going to set assessment criteria (marking scheme) for

the element they have got

show them to use the form provided

guide and help them to decide the weight (percentage) they should allot to

that specific element out of the total mark (100%) out of which the whole

performance is evaluated; the number of standards (levels of quality) and

the value of each level. Note that each element can have different weight

and number of standards from the other. For the start they may use three

standards (levels) and may move to five or more standards as they get

experienced

280

help them by providing appropriate expressions like few errors, lots of

hesitations, many redundancies, lack conclusion, in appropriate word, etc.

and remind them not to use general descriptors like good, excellent

let them join a similar group and compare their scheme, discuss and

improve

Let each group present its marking scheme and guide the class to discuss

and agree on the rubrics developed for each element so that they are shared

as a class and to be used in SA

Merge all the forms for different components into one and have all the class

copy it and inform them that they will use it throughout the rest sessions

Content information

1. The students may use some general terms like interesting, attractive, comprehensible,

fluent speech, etc.; or may use some specific characteristics like correct grammar,

related ideas, well organised etc. to describe a good/effective oral performance. This

much is enough for this activity.

2. Generally there can be four techniques of scoring an oral performance: error counting,

impressionistic (holistic), primary trait scoring and analytic. In the error counting

method, the marker counts the number of errors in the texts and deduct from the total

marks assigned to the work. It ignores the different constructs and sub-skills and fails

to take in to account of the kind of error to be or not to be emphasised (Heaton, 1990;

Hughes, 2003).

The impression (holistic) method involves awarding marks to students’ work based on

the total impression of the performance as a whole. Though this method is good for

efficiency, marking large number of composition, it is vulnerable to the markers’ bias.

It also ignores the aspects of error to be focused on and it is difficult for students to get

feedback (Heaton, 1990; Hughes, 2003; Brown, 2003).

The primary trait scoring involves focusing on a single primary purpose of the

performance. For example, if the purpose of the oral performance is to argue, it is

marked based on how well the performer achieved this purpose

281

The analytic method involves the use of marking scheme that helps the marker to

identify the language aspects and skills required to be exhibited by the testee. It also

guides on the amount of mark to be given for each aspect element. Therefore, it is

relatively reliable than the others and helps to give feedback to students on their

performance

3. Rubric ( scoring guide) is a set of criteria used to discriminate effectively between

quality of different performances

Working Form for a group

Form A

Performance/Outcome: ___________________________Name (ID): __________________

Date: ______________________Rated by: Self __ _ Teacher _____

Form B

Performance/Outcome: ___________________________Name (ID): __________________

Date: ______________________Rated by: Self __ __ Teacher _____

Section 4: Applying the Criteria, giving and using Feedback (3 hrs.)

Element weight descriptors points score comment

Grammar

(tense,

agreements, etc)

20%

Very few errors, clearly

understandable

17-20

Few grammatically correct

utterances, very difficult to

understand

2-5

Components Weight

descriptors points Score comment

Content

(relevance and

adequacy)

(30%)

Has little or no relation and limited ideas

5

very relevant and comprehensive

information

30

282

Objectives

After this section the students will be able to:

Practice scoring their own English oral performances using the rubrics (scoring

guide) they have developed

Give feedback to each other

Use feedback from peers and instructor to improve their scoring

Activity I: Assessing others

Task 1 scoring

get a video record of an interactive or extensive oral performance e.g.,

speech, presentation, dialogue, interview, etc. let them watch first to give

the hint of what kind of English oral performance they are going to score

check that each student have got the scoring form

decide, with the whole class, which elements should be included in the

scoring and which should be excluded and the weighting of each element

depending on the type of task performance you have got and/or the

objective of the assessment

let them watch the video and score the performance using the form

task 2 Feedback

get the students join in groups of three or four and compare and contrast

their scores

let them discuss on their difference and give reasons to justify or improve if

convinced or keep it until you replay the recording

when they have done it show them your scoring and let them compare and

contrast it with their own

replay the recording again and let them improve their scoring if they need

see the number of students whose scoring is nearly similar, a bit different ,

and very different from yours

let everyone raise the areas of differences and; you explain yours and they

too. One can also improve her/his scoring during this discussion

283

explain that as this is subjective judgement, it is difficult to avoid differences and

have the same score; but the very important thing is to avoid personal bias about

the assessee and concentrate on the criteria of the assessment

assign an individual or a pair oral task to be performed next session

Task 3 Scoring classmates’ oral performance

Get the students ready with their scoring guide and inform them that they are

going to assess their classmates’ performance

Decide on what to be assessed and the weighting of each element

Have all the students do the performances you assigned the last session in turn and

let the students assess the performance of their classmates. You can divide the

class into groups of assessors in the way that a student gets a chance of scoring at

least three performances

video record each performance so that the performers score their own performance

later

you also score the performance using these same scoring guide

let them get feedback from peers and you as done in task 2 above

Activity II: Assessing own oral performance

Task 1 scoring

Get each student watch video of her/his own performance and score it. Let him/her

watch the video once more if s/he needs

You also score every student’s performance

Task 2 Feedback

In one-to-one format, show your scoring of the student’s performance and let

him/her compares it with his/her self-assessment

Discus on the differences and give feedback to each of their self-assessment

Remind them that the very purpose of self assessment is improving one’s own

learning

provide the students with the opportunity to get ample feedback by repeating this

activity II of this section

284

Content information

In an assessment it may not be necessary either to include all the elements of oral

performance or give equal emphasis. The element which should be included in the

criteria and the amount it should count depends on the objective/s of the assessment. For

instance, if the objective of the assessment is to see how well students can select relevant

information and organise it, then content and organisation would be the main criteria.

The others can be ignored or assigned to count lesser percentage of the assessment

value.

8 Section 5: Setting Goals and Action Plans (1 hr.)

Objectives

At the end of this section, the students will be able to:

identify their strengths and weaknesses of their oral performances

write a major and two/three specific goals to improve their weakness

describe the actions they will take to achieve the goals

Activity I: Reflection have the students to think back their self assessment and identify

- what they have done well

- what they failed to do

Individually, let them list down as many specific points about the good and poor

performance. Help them to specify clearly.

Guide them to decide on two or three specific problems that they need to improve

soon

let them find and join classmates with the same problem (if there are many with

similar problem, they can break into groups of three or four)

Activity II writing goals and action plans

In their group or pair, guide them to discuss and

- Identify the source/s of their problems

- to what extent they need to improve it (goals) and

285

- what things they need to do to improve it (action)

let them write down their goals and actions. Guide and help them to write their

goals, and plans in specific, clear and achievable expressions. You can add to the

examples given in the student’s material

286

Appendix 9: Marking Scheme for students

Performance/outcome: ___________________________________ID: _____________

Marked by Self

Elements

wei

gh

t

Descriptors

score

Content

(relevance

and

adequacy)

4pts

Has no any relation 0

Has little relation and limited ideas 1

Has some relevance but inadequate information 2

Relevant and sufficiently adequate 3

very relevant and entirely adequate information 4

Organisation

(Lead-in,

finishing,

coherence,

cohesion)

4p

ts

Has no introduction (lead-in) and/or conclusion (ending), ideas are not logically

sequenced and there are no or few appropriate cohesive devices and transition signals, no

clear main and supporting details

0.5

Not easily recognisable (weak) introduction and conclusion, serious problem with logical

order of ideas, some appropriate cohesive devices and transition signals, few supporting

ideas

1.25

Clear lead-in and ending, some problems with sequencing ideas, not fully supported

ideas and a few inappropriate cohesions and transitions

2.5

Interesting introduction and finishing, very few errors in sequencing, clear and fully

developed main and supporting ideas, appropriate use of cohesion and transition

4

Grammar

(tenses,

pluralisation,

agreements,

etc.)

5pts

Lots of unintentional grammatical errors, difficult to understand 1

Considerable grammatical errors but understandable 2

A few grammatical flaws, but easily understandable 3

Rare or few unintentional errors 4

Virtually no or very rare unintentional error (native- like accuracy) 5

287

Fluency

(ease of

production)

3pts

Frequent hesitation, many unintentional incomplete sentences, long pauses and

regressions, perceived difficulty in production difficult to understand

0.5

Occasional hesitation, a few unintentional fragments and pauses, less ease of producing

sentences (speech), but understandable

1.25

Few hesitation and effortless production, few fragments and unintentional pauses, little

regressions, easy to understand

2.15

Virtually no any fragment, no unintentional pause, effortless (easy) production of

sentences

3

Vocabulary

(choice &

appropriaten

ess)

4pts

Very limited vocabulary, frequent misuse of lexical items, too wordy, no idea of

register

0.5

inadequate vocabulary and poor expression of idea, frequent use of inappropriate

words

1

Adequate vocabulary, but some misuse of words, lack of variety 2

Occasional use of inappropriate terms, lack of some idea of register 3

Precise and variety use of words, concise and good register 4

Intelligibility

3pts

Frequent and consistent mispronunciation, very much influenced by mother

tongue, difficult to get meanings

1

A few mispronunciation , a little effect of L1 leading to occasional problem of

comprehension

2

Few mispronunciation, almost no problem of understanding, though marked

foreign accent

3

Strategy of

Delivery 2p

ts

Little eye contact, facial expressions and other body languages, inappropriate

voice level and sitting or standing posture, unnecessary mannerism

0.5

eye contact fixed at a point, insufficient body language, inappropriate voice level

a few mannerism

1

Consistent and appropriate facial expressions and other body, appropriate voice

level and sitting or standing posture few or no mannerism

2

Adapted from: The Associated Examining Board Test in English for Educational Purpose: Assessment Criteria for the Oral

Test (Weir, 1990)

288

Appendix 10 : Marking scheme for instructor

Performance: ________________________________

The student’s code

Name

Topics assigned

Construct

wei

gh

t Descriptors

poin

ts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Content

(relevance

and

adequacy) 4pts

Has no any relation 0

Has little relation and limited

ideas

1

Has some relevance but

inadequate information

2

Relevant and sufficiently adequate 3

very relevant and entirely

adequate information

4

289

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Organisation

(Lead-in,

finishing,

coherence,

cohesion)

4pts

Has no lead-in and/or ending,

ideas are not logically

sequenced and there are no or

few appropriate cohesive

devices and transition signals,

no clear main and supporting

details

0.5

Not easily recognisable (weak)

lead-in & finish, serious

problem with logical order of

ideas, some appropriate

cohesive devices and transition

signals, few supporting details

1.25

clear lead-in and ending, some

problems with sequencing

ideas, not fully supported ideas

and a fewappropriate

cohesions and transitions

2.5

Interesting introduction and

finishing, very few errors in

sequencing, clear and fully

developed main and

supporting ideas, appropriate

use of cohesion and transition

4

290

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Grammar

(tenses,

pluralisation,

agreements

etc.)

5pts

Lots of unintentional grammatical

errors, difficult to understand

1

Considerable grammatical errors

but understandable

2

A few grammatical flaws, but

easily understandable

3

Rare or few unintentional errors 4

Virtually no or very rare

unintentional error (native- like

accuracy)

5

Fluency (ease

of production)

3pts

Frequent hesitation, many

unintentional incomplete

sentences, long pauses and

regressions, perceived difficulty

in production difficult to

understand

0.

5

Occasional hesitation, a few

unintentional fragments and

pauses, less ease of producing

sentences (speech), but

understandable

1.

2

5

Few hesitation and effortless

production, few fragments and

unintentional pauses, little

regressions, easy to understand

2.

2

5

Virtually no any fragment, no

unintentional pause, effortless

(easy) production of sentences

3

291

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Vocabulary

(choice &

appropriate

ness) 4pts

Very limited vocabulary, frequent misuse of

lexical items, too wordy, no idea of register

0

inadequate vocabulary and poor expression of

idea, frequent use of inappropriate words

1

Adequate vocabulary, but some misuse of

words, lack of variety

2

Occasional use of inappropriate terms, lack of

some idea of register

3

Precise and variety use of words, concise and

good register

4

Intelligibilit

y

3pts

Frequent and consistent mispronunciation, very

much influenced by mother tongue, difficult to

get meanings

1

A few mispronunciation , a little effect of L1

leading to occasional problem of comprehension

2

Few mispronunciation, almost no problem of

understanding, though marked foreign accent

3

Strategy of

Delivery

2pts

Little eye contact, facial expressions and other

body languages, inappropriate voice level and

sitting or standing posture, unnecessary

mannerism

0.

5

eye contact fixed at a point, insufficient body

language, inappropriate voice level a few

mannerism

1

Consistent and appropriate facial expressions

and other body, appropriate voice level and

sitting or standing posture few or no mannerism

2

292

9 Appendix 11 Students interview Transcript (1

st round pre-intervention)

Interviewer: thank you for your cooperation for this interview. To introduce myself, I’m Rufael

Disasa I am student at Addis Ababa University. I’m doing a research in the area of assessment. So, the

purpose of this interview is to collect data for the research. And I want to assure you that the

information to be obtained from this interview will be used for this research only; therefore, you just

feel free and respond to my questions. We raise some issues of assessment in general and students’ self

assessment in particular. Basically there is no any wrong or right answer, I want you just to tell me

whatever you feel I mean your opinion and thoughts about the points we raise. And I hope you

understand that your genuine I mean true answer is very important for the validity of the research

result. we can also use our native language and express our idea if we want to. ማለት ለምሳሌ እኔ ሃሳቤን

ለመግለጽ በተመቸኝ ቋንቋ እጠቀማለሁ ሃሳባችንን ነጻ ሆነን በምመቸን ቋንቋ መግለጽ እንችላለን ።

To begin with, what do you think is the main purpose of assessment or evaluation? I mean why you

think a teacher assess your work? Shall I begin with you?

S1: the purpose of assessment is during the teaching process established that means when the teacher

teaching students he evaluates which or among the students who are working hard to

differentiate who is weak in his work and his study evaluate whether they are who record the

higher mark he want to know when he is teaching who is hard working and to evaluate teach

from one grade to another grade students they need to be assessed and then evaluate to pass or

progressive purpose they pass from one session to another this is the main reason and whether

the students have understood what they have been taught before and to prepare themselves for

the study purpose

Interviewer: thank you, any additional idea? Yes,

S2: the teacher wants to check which student is strong and which student is weak. He can see the

successfulness of the learning process by continuous assessment

Interviewer: thank you, okay you have something to add?

S3: Additionally my classmates more said something there the teacher is to assessing the students for

improving the students how to students understand how to students come to the class how to

students work hard to differentiate which one is study hard which one is lazy which one is by

depend on other etc are differentiated the teacher to assess this and evaluate students and score

the grade and knowledgeable of the course

Interviewer: thank you, ok you.

S4 that is important for the teacher because by taking assessment he can identify students who are

weak and strong, who have the knowledge. Unless he evaluates he cannot understand our

potential whether we understand his lecture whether it is clear or not without evaluation he did

293

not understand. Even in one class he may give lecture method for us on the same topic the same

idea he can understand which students have high capacity and which students have low capacity

and which students are medium without assessment he cannot identify

Interviewer: thank you all; let me raise a question related to this. Who do you think should do the

assessment?

S2: the teachers should do the assessment because he is the profession he knows whatever he teaches

the level of the students etc. So the teacher it is his job

S5: the teacher or the department can do assessment but the course instructor should prepare it he must

prepare grade at the end so he should make preparation for grading for example the department

may not know how the students learned the ability of the students but the instructor knows

Interviewer: thank you. Let me go to my next question. What is self assessment? How do you describe

it?

S3: ok, this assessment is just the process of evaluating the progress and achievement and self

assessment can be the base for all assessment and the key for success because before we sit for

the exam it is better to evaluate yourself whether you can or not that is good as I think

Interviewer: thank you, anyone who has anything to add? Okay,

S6: in my opinion self assessment is very essential to students the students when you every time

assessing students, students must do self assessment to developing their confidence and to more

knowledgeable to do anything to self confidence it is very important to developing and their self

confidence from time to time everything is not expected from the teacher it is mostly expected

from the student

Interviewer: anything to add or any different idea? Ok, one question related to this is, you just said that

assessing is the job of the teacher. Do you think that students can be involved in assessing themselves?

I mean, for example the teacher gives an assignment, a test or exam and then give mark for your work.

The teacher also sets the criteria against which your work is marked. I mean, when the assessment is

not objective type like multiple choice, true/false or matching item, but subjective type, for example,

when assessing speaking or writing a paragraph the teacher decides on the criteria. The criteria may be

the content, the grammar, vocabulary, etc. It is also the teacher who marks your work using the criteria.

Do you think that students should be involved or participate in the assessment process? Is it appropriate

to do so? If yes how? I mean in what ways? If not, why? What is your reason? ግልፅ ለማድረግ እኛ

አንደምናዉቀዉ እና የተለመደዉ አሠራር ምንድን ነዉ ፈተናዉን የመያወጠ ፈተናዉ የምታረምበትን ክራተርያ ወይም መሥፈርት

የምያወጣ መምህሩ ነዉ ክራተርያ ወይም መሥፈርት ስባል ለምሳሌ ፓራግራፍ ስታረም ይህ ፓራግራፍ ይህንን ይህንን እና ይህንን

ነጥቦች ካሟላ ይሀን ያህል ማርክ ይህንን ይህንን እና ይህንን ነጥቦች ካሟላ ግን ይህንን ይህንን ካላሟላ ይሀን ያህል ማርክ ብሎ

መወሰን ማለት ነዉ እና የኔ ጥያቄ ተማርዉ በዚህ ሂደት በዚህ ዉሳኔ መሳተፍ ይችላል ወይ? መሳተፉስ አግባብ ነዉ ወይ? ሁለት

ጥያቄ ነዉ

S1: well I would like to say students can assess for example now teacher may assess me it is possible

but I myself I can assess myself in which way when I say this for example I know even if I am

294

not telling to someone intentionally I know that I’m studying well where I’m the position where

when I get the result of my tests and look at my mark, I can evaluate myself when I’m mistaken

when the subject is difficult which portion I can evaluate myself in case of exam the part which

is become difficult for me to understand I know I can revise the subject matter and then in case

of competition may be the students fellow of my friends when they are studying I know who is a

head of me in his position I can make competition with them by evaluating myself by assessing

myself always emmm…. I can assess myself true my result position this can make me to become

strength in the whole part I can do by this way I suppose it is better not to rely on the teacher

assessment only we ourselves can assess ourself to progress our activity of our learning process.

Emmm..... but I do not show or tell to my fellow students

S4: we ourselves can determine our capacity or our knowledge depending on how we are reading or

answering that question and where we are. This is evaluating ourselves. Not only the teacher can

we evaluate ourselves. You evaluate yourself by looking at the mark you get.

Interviewer: ok, thank you. Let me clarify my idea. What you are saying is what you do informally by

yourself isn’t it? But do you think that you should be allowed, formally, to mark your own work, give

mark for their own work and this mark should count to their final grade? For example, I’m your

instructor, I prepare an assessment task you do the task, and I allow you to score give mark to your

own work. Do you think that this is possible and it is appropriate?

S7: I think this one is not appropriate way because everybody is not doing justice as the teacher do

because he has already been qualified and has professional of doing this in teaching learning

process he knows the way but now many students they may mark for the questions that may be

wrong they mark right because they want good grades in this case may be difficult for students

to assess themselves truly in case of exam

Interviewer: thank you, ok do you share his idea or have a different one

S2: yes it is not possible why, that students depend on only teacher they are thinking the teacher is

helping me always they say but it is important for the students to practice work hard more

writing more speaking and more vocabulary but for me it is not important for students to give

mark for themselves and evaluate itself

Interviewer: do you mean that you do not think that students should mark his/her own work?

S2: yes the teacher knows how to give mark. This purpose of learning is to gain knowledge and to

develop my skills and to create new thing. In this case if I evaluate myself this is a problem there

is a teacher the work of the teacher and the students are different even though they have relation

teacher have already qualified is well trained how to evaluate and check the course but the job of

the students is learning getting knowledge and develop their skills and the students they have no

such criteria and it is competition

Interviewer: anyone who shares this idea or have something different

S5: yes it is good to evaluate ourselves i.e., to evaluate how we can answer the question and now the

time is now student centred and it needs self-assessment so that self-assessment is better before

295

sitting on the exam, not after the exam, the exam should be evaluated by another, but before the

exam we can evaluate ourselves how can answer the questions how to prepare for the exam that

is good for the students

S3: yes it is impossible for students to mark their own because the teacher is already qualified and has

profession to correct you. Students their purpose is to learn and ask questions on the subject

matter not marking tests. The purpose of the teacher is to correct you. In case of for example you

write a paragraph or essay in case of thesis, the supporting details, the grammar, vocabulary all

these must be corrected by the teacher the purpose of the teacher is to correct but the students

cannot correct for themselves they cannot mark

Interviewer: why?

S3: because people are selfish they do not do reality they are selfish they put high mark for themselves

in case of exam right now for example if you give exam out of ten you can differentiate who put

high mark or ten out of ten for themselves if we write right now and after we write we put mark

for our own I cannot put for myself because by applying my own knowledge and my position I

put ten out of ten I cannot put seven or five or six out of ten because I need mark and not the

ability or that I can do. I put more than that. Therefore in that process they cannot mark their

own exam the teacher is responsible to mark.

Interviewer: thank you. Ok you.

S1: when I am student i need high mark. There is self evaluation when we do something for example

speak or write I evaluate my grammar or vocabulary but it is impossible to mark for students

እዚሀ ላይ አንድ ነገር አለ ራስ በራስ መፈተን ሳይሆን ሰዉ ስፈትንህ ነዉ አቋምህን የምታዉቀዉ እንጅ ራስህን አታዉቀዉም

አሁነ እኔ ዊኪ ሳይድ እና ስትሮንግ ሳይድ አለኝ እኔ በራሴ ግን ዊኪ ሳይድ ትቼ ስትሮንግ ሳይድ ይዤ መሄድ ስለምፈልግ ያንን

ሰልፊሽነቴን ይዤ በሰዉ ላይ ሱፒርየር መሆን እፈልጋለዉ እንጅ ያንን አቁሜ እዚህ ላይ ችግር አለብኝ አልልም ግን

አስተማርዉ ከሆነ አዎ እዚህ አከባቢ ዊኪ ሰለሆነ ስትሮንግ አርገዉ ይላል always study work hard an doing

everything. That is teacher evaluation is important

Interviewer: thank you. You have an idea?

S7: yea, on this, most of the time most of the students want to get better results so that as I think we

want to build on the result of the record to put up because አሁን እዚህ ላይ ማለት ነዉ ብዙ ልጆች

በኮንፍደንስ ራሳቸዉን እቫሉኤት ኣያደርጉም ትኩረታችዉ ዉጤት ላይ ነዉ። ዉጤት ማግኘት ላይ ነዉ ። ይህ ነገር to

develop to improve my own their own development and skill that is better but because of many

students want to get good results on the exam or group works so forth ስለዚህ ማለት ነዉ ግን

ኮንፍደንሱን ወይም እንዴት ያንን ተረድቻለሁ ለማለት ለራሳቸዉ ማርክ ቢሠጡ ጥሩ ነበር ግን ብዙ ተማሪዎች ትኩረታቸዉ

ዉጤት ማግኘት ላይ ብቻ ስለሆነ እኔ በኔ በኩል ማለት ነዉ it is good in one direction and it is problem in

other direction

Interviewer: anyone to add or have an idea? Okay,

S6: the students cannot participate

Interviewer: why?

296

S6: he has not experience to writing, or speaking or other skills or developing criteria, but the teacher

for the classroom take for example the teacher gives pair work, or group work , knows every

participation classroom participation, so the teacher should develop the criteria and mark the

assignments and tests

Interviewer: so, you mean that it is only the teacher who should develop the criteria but students cannot

participate in doing this?

Ss: yes

Interviewer: Good; look let me ask you one more question may be my last question. Do you think that

participating in the process of assessing your performance that means deciding the criteria and marking

of your own performance has any benefit I mean advantage or disadvantage? For example, you are

given a speaking assignment and you are asked to decide on the points to be given for the different

performances, and then to evaluate or give marks using the criteria you agreed on. Does this have any

advantage or disadvantage?

S5: on this way it has importance because since we are campus students may be after some years we

graduate from this campus and we become teachers, so we must able on giving mark to our

students and such like, for example, if we get high school so the potentiality of grade nine to

twelve students is very high so if I not evaluate within campus myself እዚሀ ላይ ማለት ነዉ እዚህ

ዉስጥ ሆኜ ራሴን መገምገም የማልችል ከሆነ ተማሪዎቼን እቫሉኤት ለማድረግ እዚህ ዉስጥ ልምድ ካላገኜ ማለት ነዉ ወጥቼ

ልጆችን ማስተማር ላይ ወይ የሆነ ኮሌጅ እገባለሁ እዚያ ላይ ተማርዎቼን አሰስ ላማድረግ እዚህ ዉስጥ የበለጠ አስተማሪ

እቫሉኤት ቢያደርግ በጣም ጥሩ ነዉ sometimes it is necessary for students to self assess because of if

you went out from this you may became true in every place and every school so እዚህ ዉስጥ ራስን

ለመገመት ራሳችንን እቫሉኤት ለማድረግ እዚህ ዉስት ብሠጥ ጥሩ ነዉ ይህ አጋጣሚ የበለጠ ይሆናል ነዉ የምለዉ ለወደፊት

S2: something to say when we are given the criteria to mark for our own we can focus on and then we

can mark for our own we can record or we can evaluate ourselves with whatever we are dealing

with for example we are to write and then after writing I am given the criteria to mark for my

own I can evaluate for my own I can do it but in case of competition and I repeatedly say people

are not justice in case of competition students do not put reality for their mark it is difficult for

students to evaluate themselves in case of exams but they can evaluate themselves intentionally

they know the position where they are they can differentiate their weak side and strong side by

checking the criteria but in case of competition really it is difficult to evaluate your mark for

your own in my opinion.

Interviewer: whatever it is I mean whether the person be biased or not, but do you think the practice by

itself has any advantage or disadvantage in what way?

S3: no there is advantage you can get some knowledge from there by evaluating when we are given the

criteria to check up and avoid in case of difficulties in case of strength where own ability is to

check up I can check my paragraph by following the rule how to write how to check the first

phase the second phase supporting details and conclusion when I read all these I can evaluate

myself so there is no harm it has advantage

297

S1: the purpose of assessment is removing your mistake to remove your weak side rather than

developing if the person is biased for himself he cannot remove his mistake it is not for himself

to store mark by covering his mistake is this case it is not good to evaluate himself may be

disadvantage

Interviewer: thank you. Anyone who want to say anything? Okay, thank you very much once again for

giving me you time to answer my questions and helping me to gather data for my pilot

research. Thank you

298

10 Appendix 12

Students interview Transcript (post intervention non-treatment group)

Interviewer: welcome and thank you for your cooperation to give me this interview. I’m Rufael

Disasa I am student at Addis Ababa University. I’m also a staff of the English Department of this

university. I’m doing a research in the area of assessment. And the purpose of this interview is to

gather data for my research. And I want you to be sure that any information I get from this interview

will be used for this research only; no one is allowed to see it without your permission therefore you

feel free We raise some issues of assessment in general and students’ self assessment in particular.

there is no any wrong or right things or answer to my question I want you just to tell me whatever you

feel your opinion and what you believe about the points we raise. And I hope you understand that your

genuine I mean true answer is very important for the of the truthfulness research result. we can also use

our native language and express our idea if we want to. ማለት ለምሳሌ እኔ ሃሳቤን በእንግልዝኛ ለመግለጽ

ካስቸገረኝ በተመቸኝ ቋንቋ አማርኛ ወይም ኦሮምኛ እጠቀማለሁ ሃሳባችንን ነጻ ሆነን በምመቸን ቋንቋ

መግለጽ እንችላለን ።

Let’s start our discussion with talking about purpose of classroom assessment. what do you think is the

main purpose of classroom assessment or evaluation? I mean why you think a teacher assess your

work? Ok you start.

S1: the purpose of assessment is to know good students and weak students when the teacher teaching

students he evaluates which are working hard who is weak in his work and his study in the

classroom and the teacher give grade give continuous assessment to give final grad out of 100 to

pass from one semester to another this is the main reason

Interviewer: thank you, any additional idea? Yes,

S2: the teacher check how much the students understood or not understood what he taught to check

which student is strong and which student is weak. He can see the successfulness of the learning

process by continuous assessment

Interviewer: thank you, okay you have something to add?

S3: ok something there the teacher is to assessing the students to know the students how students

come to the class how to students work hard to differentiate which one is study hard which one

is lazy which one is by depend on other etc are differentiated the teacher to assess this and

evaluate students and give the grade of the course

Interviewer: thank you, ok you.

S4 that taking assessment is important for the teacher he can identify which students have high

capacity and which students have low capacity and which students are medium by giving

continuous assessment he can identify

299

Interviewer: thank you; the next question is Who do you think should do the assessment? who is

responsible for doing assessment?

S2: the instructor must give the assessment because he teaches the course he knows the difficult and

the students So the teacher should do assessment

S1: the department or the teacher can do assessment but it must be prepared by instructor he must give

grade at the end of the semester so he should give continuous assessment for grading for

example the department do not know which topics the students learned and the strength and

ability of the students but the instructor knows

Interviewer: thank you. Let me go to my next question. What is self assessment? How do you describe

it?

S5: ok, self-assessment is the process of assessing the strong and weak side of myself. self assessment

is good for all assessment and important because for example before you take a test or exam

you evaluate yourself whether you studied and understand what you read that is good as I think

Interviewer: thank you, anyone who has anything to add? Okay,

S3: self assessment is very essential to students the students in my opinion, students always must do

self assessment. after the test or exam they must think how the exam was difficult or easy which

question to developing their ability to do anything to self confidence it is very important to

developing and their self confidence from time to time everything is not expected from the

teacher it is mostly expected from the student

S4 self-assessment is when you compare yourself to your classmate what is your ability low high or

medium you check the result of your test with the your friends this is must because you work

hard to get good mark for the next time

Interviewer: anything to add or any different idea? Ok, the next question is related to this now you said

that the teacher should do the assessing because it is his job. But do you think that students can

participate in the assessment process? I mean, for example the teacher gives an assignment, a

test or exam and then give mark for your work. The teacher also sets the criteria against which

your work is marked. I mean, when the assessment is not objective type like multiple choice,

true/false or matching item, when it subjective type, for example, when assessing speaking or

writing a paragraph the teacher decides on the criteria. The criteria may be the content, the

grammar, vocabulary, etc. It is also the teacher who marks your work using the criteria. Do you

think that students should be involved or participate in the assessment process? Is it appropriate

to do so? If yes how? I mean in what ways? If not, why? What is your reason? ግልፅ ለማድረግ እኛ

አንደምናዉቀዉ ምንድን ነዉ ፈተናዉን የሚያወጣ እና ፈተናዉ የምታረምበትን ክራተርያ ወይም መሥፈርት የምያወጣ

መምህሩ ነዉ ክራተርያ ወይም መሥፈርት ስባል ለምሳሌ ፓራግራፍ ስታረም ይህ ፓራግራፍ ይህንን ይህንን እና ይህንን

ነጥቦች ካሟላ ይሀን ያህል ማርክ ይህንን ይህንን እና ይህንን ነጥቦች ካሟላ ግን ይህንን ይህንን ካላሟላ ይሀን ያህል ማርክ

ብሎ መወሰን ማለት ነዉ እና የኔ ጥያቄ ተማርዉ በዚህ ሂደት በዚህ ዉሳኔ መሳተፍ ይችላል ወይ? መሳተፉስ አግባብ ነዉ

ወይ?

300

S1: yes in my opinion I say students can assess the teacher assess me that is must but I myself I can

assess myself in which way for example if I am not telling to someone intentionally I know that

I’m I am understanding well or not where I’m the position when look at my mark result of my

tests, I can evaluate myself when I’m mistaken myself the part of exam which is difficult for

me to understand

S3: we ourselves can determine our capacity or our knowledge depending on how we are reading or

answering that question and where we are. This is evaluating ourselves. Not only the teacher can we

evaluate ourselves. You evaluate yourself by looking at the mark you get.

Interviewer: ok, thank you. Let me clarify my idea. What you are saying is what you do informally by

yourself isn’t it? አሁን ያልነዉ ነገር ወይም አሰራር ተማሪዉ በየግሉ የሚያደርገዉን ነዉ ነገር ግን አሁን እንደልኩኝ ክራተሪያ

በማዉጣቱና በማረሙ ላይ ተማሪዉ ይሳተፋል ወይ መሳተፍ ይችላል ወይ? Do you think that this is possible and it is

appropriate?

S3: as I think it is not right because the student cannot do as the teacher because he has professional

of doing this in teaching learning process he knows the way but students they may give mark for

the questions is wrong they want grades in this case not appropriate for students to assess

themselves in this way

Interviewer: thank you, ok similar idea or any different one?

S4: this way is not possible why, that students must learn from teacher the teacher is teaching and

giving assessment but it is important for the students to study more to develop ability writing

more speaking and more vocabulary but for me it is not important for students to give mark for

themselves and evaluate itself

Interviewer: do you mean that you do not think that students should mark his/her own work?

S2: yes in this case it is not appropriate if I evaluate myself I give the top mark for myself because it is

competition and students are selfish we don’t use the criteria but give high mark.

Interviewer: anyone who shares this idea or have something different

Interviewer: thank you. Ok you.

S1: we assess ourself always there is self evaluation when we do something for example speak or write

I evaluate my grammar or vocabulary but it is impossible to mark for students ምንድን ነዉ እዚህ ላይ

አንድ ሰዉ ለራሱ ዝቅተኛ ማርክ አይሰጥም ስለዚህ ሰዉ ስፈትንህ ነዉ እንጅትክክለኛ ዉጤትህን የምታዉቀዉ ራስህን

አታዉቀዉም አሁን ለምሳሌ እኔ ደካማ እና ጠንካራ ሳይድ አለኝ እኔ በራሴ ግን ደካማ ጎኔን ማሳየት አልፈልግም ስትሮንግ

ሳይድ ይዤ መሄድ ስለምፈልግ እዚህ ላይ ችግር አለብኝ አልልም ግን አስተማርዉ ከሆነ ትክክለኛዉን ነገር ስለምነግረኝ

እሱን አይቼ ለማስተካካል እሞክራለሁ ማለት ነዉ

Interviewer: thank you. You have an idea?

S5: አሁን ማለት ነዉ ብዙ ልጆች ራሳቸዉን በትክክል አሰስ ማድረግ አይፈልጉም ዉጤት ብቻ ይፈልጋሉ ። ዉጤት ማግኘት ላይ

ነዉ ። ስለዚህ ማለት ነዉ ብዙ ተማሪዎች ትኩረታቸዉ ዉጤት ማግኘት ላይ ብቻ ስለሆነ እኔ ማለት ነዉ ተማሪዎች

ለራሳቸዉ ማርክ መሰጠታቸዉ አሰቸጋሪ ነገር ነዉ ብዬ አስባለሁ

301

Interviewer: ተጨማሪ ወይም የተለየ ሃሳብ ካለ

Interviewer: Good; one more question may be my last question. Do you think that participating in the

process of assessing your performance that means deciding the criteria and marking of your own

performance has any benefit I mean advantage or disadvantage? For example, if you are given a

speaking assignment and you are asked to decide on the points to be given for the different

performances, and then to evaluate or give marks using the criteria you agreed on. Does this have any

advantage or disadvantage?

S2: in my opinion it is has importance when we are given the criteria to mark for our own we can use

the criteria when we study or doing assignments to understand whether our answers are correct

or not and then we can mark for our own we can record or we can evaluate ourselves I can

evaluate for my own I can do it but in case of competition and I say people are biased in case of

competition students do not put true mark for their mark it is difficult for students to evaluate

themselves in case of exams but they can evaluate themselves intentionally they know their

weak side and strong side by checking the criteria but in case of competition it is not appropriate

to give mark for your own.

Interviewer: whether the person be biased or not, ተማሪዉ ትክክለኛ ማርክ ባይሰጥም በእንደዚህ አይነት ራሱን አሰስ

ማድረጉ በራሱ ጥቅም ወይም ጉዳት አለዉ ወይ do you think the practice by itself has any advantage or

disadvantage in what way?

S3: it has advantage we learn knowledge from there by evaluating when we do the criteria and check

where our ability can check my ability of writing paragraph or speaking topics by using the

criteria how to write how to check organisation supporting details and conclusion when speak

my topic information relationship of my ideas etc.

S1: but in my opinion if we don’t remove your mistake than developing if the person is putting wrong

mark he cannot remove his mistake by forgetting his mistake is this case it is not advantage to

evaluate himself it is disadvantage

S5: I think it has importance because may be we graduate from this university and become teachers, so

we must able to assess our students and such like, for example, if I not learn evaluating myself

in this university I cannot እዚሀ ላይ ማለት ነዉ እዚህ ዉስጥ ሆኜ ራሴን እንዴት አሰስ ማድረግ ካልተማርኩ

ተማሪዎችን እቫሉኤት ለማድረግ አልችልም ስለዚህ ወጥቼ ልጆችን ማስተማር አሰስ ላማድረግ ጥሩ ነዉ እዚህ ዉስጥ ግን

አስተማሪ እቫሉኤት ቢያደርግ በጣም ጥሩ ነዉ

Interviewer: thank you. Anyone who want to say anything? Okay, thank you very much once again for

giving me you time to answer my questions. Thank you

11 Declaration

I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis is original product of my work and has not been

presented at any university in the same or different form to obtain any degree other than that

for which I am now a candidate, and that all sources used for the thesis have been duly

acknowledged.

Sign_________________________


June 2013

Learners' Self-assessment of their Oral Performance in EFL Classrooms: The Case of Wollega...

Documents

Transcript of Learners' Self-assessment of their Oral Performance in EFL Classrooms: The Case of Wollega...