SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ELT Research Journal / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 1

Technology-Mediated Assessment in Blended EFL Courses: A Qualitative Interview Study of Students’ Experiences

Karma EFL Derslerinde Teknoloji Aracılı Değerlendirme: Öğrencilerin Deneyimlerine Dayalı Nitel Bir Görüşme Çalışması

Hilal Peker(Florida Gulf Coast University)0000-0002-2642-3015
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-08
🏛️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)

Overall, the findings suggest that, in this context, students’ perceived value of EnglishCentral was shaped less by the blended assessment tools or the platform alone than by how it was positioned within the LP grading system, aligned with course and exam outcomes, and guided by the teachers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This qualitative interview study explored EFL students’ lived experiences of using EnglishCentral, a video-based platform, as part of a high-stakes assessment system in a Turkish university preparatory program.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis within Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) test usefulness framework.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, the findings suggest that, in this context, students’ perceived value of EnglishCentral was shaped less by the blended assessment tools or the platform alone than by how it was positioned within the LP grading system, aligned with course and exam outcomes, and guided by the teachers.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Blended learning · technology-mediated assessment · English as a Foreign Language (EFL)

Abstract

This qualitative interview study explored EFL students’ lived experiences of using EnglishCentral, a video-based platform, as part of a high-stakes assessment system in a Turkish university preparatory program. Six students in an intensive English program participated in in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted in Turkish. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis within Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) test usefulness framework. Three interrelated themes emerged from the data analysis. First, students reported perceived gains, mainly in terms of vocabulary, listening, and exposure to different English accents. Second, engagement was driven largely by assessment demands: students used the platform primarily to secure Language Portfolio (LP) points and reduce the risk of failure, often prioritizing task completion over learning. Third, students described the tool’s effectiveness as conditional, citing misalignment with institutional exams, opportunities to “game” automated scoring, and concerns regarding fairness, validity, and accountability. Overall, the findings suggest that, in this context, students’ perceived value of EnglishCentral was shaped less by the blended assessment tools or the platform alone than by how it was positioned within the LP grading system, aligned with course and exam outcomes, and guided by the teachers. This study recommends transparent scoring practices, moderate grade weighting, and active teacher guidance to support meaningful engagement with technology-mediated assessment in EFL contexts.

Özet

Bu nitel görüşme çalışması, Türkiye’deki bir üniversite hazırlık programında yüksek önem taşıyan bir ölçme-değerlendirme sisteminin parçası olarak kullanılan video tabanlı EnglishCentral platformuna ilişkin Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce (EFL) öğrencilerinin deneyimlerini incelemiştir. Yoğun İngilizce programında öğrenim gören altı öğrenci, Türkçe olarak gerçekleştirilen derinlemesine, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelere katılmıştır. Veriler, Bachman ve Palmer’ın (1996) test kullanışlılığı çerçevesi kapsamında refleksif tematik analiz yoluyla çözümlenmiştir. Veri analizinden birbiriyle ilişkili üç tema ortaya çıkmıştır. İlk olarak, öğrenciler özellikle kelime bilgisi, dinleme ve farklı İngilizce aksanlarına maruz kalma açısından algılanan kazanımlar bildirmiştir. İkinci olarak, öğrencilerin platformla etkileşimi büyük ölçüde değerlendirme gereklilikleri tarafından yönlendirilmiştir; öğrenciler platformu çoğunlukla Dil Portfolyosu (LP) puanlarını güvence altına almak ve dersten kalma riskini azaltmak amacıyla kullanmış, çoğu zaman öğrenmeden ziyade görevleri tamamlamaya öncelik vermiştir. Üçüncü olarak, öğrenciler aracın etkililiğini koşullara bağlı olarak değerlendirmiş; kurumsal sınavlarla uyumsuzluk, otomatik puanlama sistemini manipüle etme olasılıkları ve adalet, geçerlik ve hesap verebilirliğe ilişkin kaygıları dile getirmiştir. Genel olarak bulgular, bu bağlamda öğrencilerin EnglishCentral’a atfettikleri değerin yalnızca karma değerlendirme araçlarından ya da platformun kendisinden ziyade, platformun LP notlandırma sistemi içinde nasıl konumlandırıldığı, ders ve sınav çıktılarıyla nasıl uyumlandırıldığı ve öğretmenler tarafından nasıl yönlendirildiği ile şekillendiğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, EFL bağlamlarında teknoloji aracılı değerlendirmeyle anlamlı etkileşimi desteklemek için şeffaf puanlama uygulamalarını, makul düzeyde not ağırlığını ve aktif öğretmen rehberliğini önermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Peker, H. (2026). Technology-Mediated Assessment in Blended EFL Courses: A Qualitative Interview Study of Students’ Experiences. ELT Research Journal, Volume: 15 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.71362/eltrj.1856328

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. Abduh, M. Y. M. (2021). Full-time online assessment during COVID-19 lockdown: EFL teachers’ perceptions. Asian EFL Journal Research Articles, 28(1.1), 26–46.
  2. Ahmad, N., Ab Rahim, I. S., & Ahmad, S. (2021). Challenges in implementing online language assessment-A critical reflection of issues faced amidst Covid-19 pandemic. Knowledge Management International Conference (KMICe), 74–79. http://www.kmice.cms.net.my/
  3. Albiladi, W. S., & Alshareef, K. K. (2019). Blended learning in English teaching and learning: A systematic review. Arab World English Journal, 10(1), 220–240. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol10no1.20
  4. Almalki, H. & Storch, N. (2023) Online collaborative L2 writing: Using synchronous and asynchronous tools with Arabic as a second language learners. In M. Li & M. Zhang (Eds.), L2 collaborative writing in diverse learning contexts (pp. 130–154). John Benjamins, https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.59.06alm
  5. Almutairi, L., Alghamdi, H., Alseghayr, M., Aljuhami, R., Alqahtani, S., & Alfadda, H. (2024). English language assessment through blended learning: An investigation on teachers’ and ESL learners’ beliefs and practices in technical colleges. US-China Education Review A, 14(9), 577-586.
  6. Alrouji, O. O. (2020). The effectiveness of blended learning in enhancing Saudi students’ competence in paragraph writing. English Language Teaching, 13(9), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n9p72
  7. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press.
  8. Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.06.001
  9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  10. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
  11. Coombe, C. (2018). An A–Z of second language assessment. https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/a_to_z_glossary_final.pdf
  12. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
  13. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001 Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). Pfeiffer.
  14. Halpin, S. N. (2024). Inter-coder agreement in qualitative coding: Considerations for its use. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 8(3), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/14887
  15. Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2017). History of language teacher training and English language testing and evaluation (ELTE) education in Turkey. In Y. Bayyurt & A. Sifakis (Eds.), English language education policies and practices in the Mediterranean countries (pp. 227-257). Peter Lang.
  16. Hashemi, A., & Si Na, K. (2020). The effects of using blended learning in teaching and learning English: A review of literature. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 18, 173-179. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED614699.pdf
  17. Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? TechTrends, 63(5), 564–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5
  18. Nusong, K., & Watanapokakul, S. (2025). Evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning in an EFL undergraduate classroom. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 18(1), 320–351. https://doi.org/10.70730/JHII1331
  19. Ramalingam, S., Yunus, M. M., & Hashim, H. (2022). Blended learning strategies for sustainable ESL education. SAGE Open, 12(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138051
  20. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 Sari, R. Y., & Hermawan, H. (2022). The effect of blended learning and teacher-student interaction on the learning motivation of SMAN 1 Depok City students. International Journal of Educational Technology and Learning, 13(2), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.55217/101.v13i2.584
  21. Sakarya Akbulut, H., & Mirici, İ. H. (2024). An investigation on EFL students’ perceptions of task-based language assessment in the blended learning environment. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 18(2), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13225030
  22. Tao, Y., Yu, L., Luo, L., & Zhang, H. (2024). Effect of blended teaching on college students' EFL acquisition. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1−13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1264573
  23. Tran, T. T. T. (2021). Using formative assessment in a blended EFL listening course. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT)11(3), 17-38. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCALLT.2021070102
  24. Watanapokakul, S. (2022). Blended online learning: Perceptions and experiences of EFL university students and teachers. rEFLections, 29(1), 60–87. https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v29i1.258511
  25. Yajie, C., & Jumaat, N. F. B. (2023). Blended learning design of English language course in higher education: A systematic review. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 13(2), 364−372. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2023.13.2.1815
  26. Yang, L., & Chano, J. (2025). The impacts of blended learning on English language proficiency in higher education: A systematic literature review. Higher Education Studies, 15(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v15n2p83
  27. Zhang, W., & Zhu, C. (2018). Comparing learning outcomes of blended learning and traditional face-to-face learning of university students in ESL courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 17(2), 251–273. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/171512/
  28. Zhang, W., & Zhu, C. (2020). Blended learning as a good practice in ESL courses compared to F2F learning and online learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 12(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJMBL.2020010105