SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Diyalog Interkulturelle Zeitschrift Für Germanistik / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1

Evaluation methods for Turkish teachers of German as a Foreign Language

Evaluationsverfahren der türkischen Deutschlehrkräfte im DaF-Unterricht

Rahim Şentürk(TRAKYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, YABANCI DİLLER EĞİTİMİ BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-3053-6784
Pages
134–155
Publication Date
2026-06-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This study contributes to the advancement of quality standards in DaF assessment and supports the professionalization of teachers’ assessment literacy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study explores which evaluation methods are used and preferred by Turkish teachers of German as a Foreign Language.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study is based on a descriptive research design and uses a standardized questionnaire distributed to 94 teachers working at state and private schools in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study contributes to the advancement of quality standards in DaF assessment and supports the professionalization of teachers’ assessment literacy.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Deutschlehrkräfte · DaF-Unterricht · Evaluationsverfahren

Abstract

This study explores which evaluation methods are used and preferred by Turkish teachers of German as a Foreign Language. The aim is to identify current practices, highlight their strengths and weaknesses, and derive recommendations for improving language assessment in foreign language instruction. The study is based on a descriptive research design and uses a standardized questionnaire distributed to 94 teachers working at state and private schools in Turkey. The data were analyzed using SPSS with descriptive statistical methods. The results provide insights into teachers’ preferences for classical (summative) and alternative (formative) assessment methods and reveal potential for the further development of competence-oriented, formative assessment practices. This study contributes to the advancement of quality standards in DaF assessment and supports the professionalization of teachers’ assessment literacy.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şentürk, R. (2026). Evaluation methods for Turkish teachers of German as a Foreign Language. Diyalog Interkulturelle Zeitschrift Für Germanistik, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1, 134–155. https://doi.org/10.37583/diyalog.1951623

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (31)

  1. Aydoğmuş, A., & Keskin, S. C. (2012). Sosyal bilgiler öğretmenlerinin süreç odaklı ölçme ve değerlendirme araçlarını kullanma durumları: İstanbul ili örneği. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2), 110–123. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mersinefd/issue/17380/181483
  2. Berisha, F., Vula, E., Gisewhite, R., & McDuffie, H. (2024). The effectiveness and challenges implementing a formative assessment professional development program. Teacher Development, 28(1), 19-43. https://aquila.usm.edu/fac_pubs/21581
  3. Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2013). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation: Für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (4. Aufl.). Springer. DOI:10.17877/DE290R-11839
  4. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. DOI:10.1177/0265532207086784
  5. Çelikkaya, T., Karakuş, U., & Demirbaş, Ç. (2010). Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenlerinin Ölçme-Değerlendirme Araçlarını Kullanma Düzeyleri ve Karşılaştıkları Sorunlar. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 57-76. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefad/issue/59507/855653
  6. Çoruhlu, T. S., Nas, S. G., & Çepni, S. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin alternatif ölçme-değerlendirme tekniklerini kullanmada karşılaştıkları problemler: Trabzon örneği. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 122–141. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/yyuefd/issue/13711/165998
  7. Dmitrenko, N., Budas, I., Koliadych, Y., & Poliarush, N. (2021). Impact of formative assessment on students’ motivation in foreign language acquisition. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 8(2), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2021.8.2.dmi
  8. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press. DOI:10.4000/asp.294
  9. Drackert, A., & Nechaeva, A. (2018). Eigene Fortschritte beim Russischlernen selbst beurteilen: Wie und wozu? In Y. Nishina (Hrsg.), Beiträge zum Themenschwerpunkt „Nicht-indoeuropäische Sprachen an Hochschulsprachenzentren“ (S. 7–20). Fremdsprachen und Hochschule, 93.
  10. GER (2001). Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: Lernen, lehren, beurteilen. Langenscheidt.
  11. Grotjahn, R. & Kleppin, K. (2017). Prüfen, Testen, Evaluieren. Berlin: Langenscheidt.
  12. Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of learning. London: Sage.
  13. Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2010). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53–64.
  14. Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
  15. Jones, J. (2006). Foreign languages in the primary school in England: A new pupil learning continuum. Francophonie, 5(31), 3–7.
  16. MEB (2024). Ölçme ve değerlendirme – Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif-Modeli. Abgerufen am 7. Mai 2025, von https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/olcme-degerlendirme
  17. Nationaler Bildungsbericht. (2024). Bildung in Deutschland 2024: Ein indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Bildung und Künstlicher Intelligenz. Bielefeld: wbv Publikation. https://www.bildungsbericht.de/de/bildungsberichte-seit-2006/bildungsbericht-2024/pdf-dateien-2024/bildungsbericht-2024.pdf (Letzter Zugriff: 07.06.2025).
  18. Ningsih, E. Y., Hayati, R., & Mulyono, H. (2024). The role of formative assessment in developing English language curriculum and learning. International Journal of Education and Practice, 12(1), 1–10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388103671
  19. Peyer, E., Lüthi, G., & Ravazzini, N. (2023). Formative Beurteilung des Sprechens im DaF-Unterricht: Praktiken und Überzeugungen von Lehrpersonen der Sekundarstufe I. Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 50, 492 - 504. DOI:10.1515/infodaf-2023-0082
  20. Rea-Dickins, P., & Gardner, S. (2000). Snares and silver bullets: Disentangling the construct of formative assessment. Language Testing, 17(2), 215–243.
  21. Reimann, D. (2020). Methoden der Fremdsprachenforschung. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 25(1), 32–50. doi: 10.26083/tuprints-00021920
  22. Schütze, B., Souvignier, E., & Hasselhorn, M. (2018). Stichwort – Formatives Assessment. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 21, 697 - 715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-018-0838-7
  23. Swan, M., & Foster, C. (2018). Formative assessment lessons. In Classroom assessment in mathematics: Perspectives from around the globe (pp. 11-24). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73748-5_2
  24. Şentürk, R. (2025a). Prüfen, Testen und Evaluieren im kommunikativen Grammatikunterricht der türkischen Deutschlehrerausbildung: Problemfelder, neue Ansätze und Implementierungsmöglichkeiten [Doktora tezi, Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü].
  25. Şentürk, R. (2025b). Mesleğe yeni başlayan Almanca öğretmenlerinin karşılaştıkları güçlükler ve çözüm önerileri. In Proceedings of the 14th International New York Academic Research Congresses on Social, Humanities, Administrative, and Educational Sciences (New York, USA). https://doi.org/10.30546/19023.978-9952-610-04-08.2025.5097
  26. Şentürk, R. & Köksal, H. (2025). The role of formative assessment in communicative grammar teaching: Opinions of German teacher candidates. Vortrag präsentiert auf dem XXIII. IBANESS Congress Series on Economics, Business and Management, Plovdiv, Bulgarien.
  27. Taras, M. (2005). Assessment–summative and formative–some theoretical reflections. British journal of educational studies, 53(4), 466-478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x
  28. Tienson-Tseng, H. L. (2019). Best practices in summative assessment. In Biochemistry Education: From Theory to Practice (S. 219-243). American Chemical Society. 10.1021/bk-2019-1337.ch010.
  29. U.S. Department of Education. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/documents/ai-report/ai-report.pdf
  30. Üner, B. T., & Aşılıoğlu, B. (2022). İngilizce öğretiminde ölçme değerlendirme sürecine ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri. EKEV Akademi Dergisi, 89, 25–50. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/sosekev/issue/71371/1147452
  31. Zhai, X., & Nehm, R. H. (2023). AI and formative assessment: The train has left the station. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(6), 1390-1398. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21885