Journals / Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies / 2019 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 1

The power of language tests in Turkish context: A critical study

Dil testlerinin Türkiye bağlamındaki gücü üzerine eleştirel bir çalışma

Pages
210–230
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️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)

Analysis of data paved the way for further studies on how high stakes tests might or might not be efficientagents of change in various educational contexts.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:High-stakes tests are often introduced to bring about change on educational practices and thus lead to pedagogicalreform.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Then, it gives information on the context of the study.Data collection for the study involved 153 test takers and 23 teacher educators working at ELT Departments inTurkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Analysis of data paved the way for further studies on how high stakes tests might or might not be efficientagents of change in various educational contexts.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

High-stakes tests are often introduced to bring about change on educational practices and thus lead to pedagogicalreform. The Field Knowledge Test (FKT) for teacher candidates of English in Turkey is an example of such anattempt. This study aims to giving voice to English language teacher educators and student teachers to view theFKT critically to investigate if it has brought about the intended changes and its impact on its main stakeholders.The study, first, presents Critical Language Testing (CLT). Then, it gives information on the context of the study.Data collection for the study involved 153 test takers and 23 teacher educators working at ELT Departments inTurkey. Two open-ended questionnaires were used to survey participants’ perceptions of the FKT in terms of itsimpact on the nature of education they receive, their attitudes and feelings and also on their academic and personallives. Analysis of data paved the way for further studies on how high stakes tests might or might not be efficientagents of change in various educational contexts.

Özet

Standart testler, eğitim uygulamalarında belli değişimler yaratmakla birlikte pedagojik reformları da beraberlerinde getirebilir. Testlerin bireyler ve toplum üzerinde oluşturduğu güç bu değişim ve etkinin temel kaynakları arasındadır. Farklı bağlamlarda bu testlerin bireyler üzerindeki gücünün ciddi sorunlara sebebiyet verdiği gözlemlenmektedir. Bu nedenle, literatürde bu testlerin ortaya çıkardığı etkileri anlayabilmek adına testlerin kendi bağlamları çerçevesinde eleştirel bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirmesi vurgulanmaktadır. Standart testlerin bireylerin hayatında etkin rol oynadığı ülkelerden birisi olan Türkiye’de son yıllarda uygulanmaya başlanan testlerden birisi Öğretmenlik Alan Bilgisi Testi (ÖABT)’dir. Ölçme, Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi (ÖSYM) tarafından uygulanmakta olan bu sınavın etki ve sonuçları üzerinde yapılan çalışmaların az olduğu söylenebilir. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmada Türkiye bağlamında ÖABT’nin İngilizce öğretmen ataması için kullanılmasının İngilizce öğretmen adayları ve İngilizce öğretmenliği bölüm hocalarının üzerinde oluşturduğu etkileri belirlemek amaçlanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

OKAN, Z., KARATAŞ, T. Ö. (2022). The power of language tests in Turkish context: A critical study. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 1, 210–230. https://ajindex.com/articles/563584

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Alderson, J. C.,&Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: A study of washback. Language Testing, 13(3), 280-297.
  2. Akpınar, K. D., Çakıldere, B. 2013. Washback effects of high-stakes language tests of Turkey (KPDS and ÜDS) on productive and receptive skills of academic personnel. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 9(2), 81-94.
  3. Andrews, S., Fullilove, J., &Wong, Y. (2002). Targeting washback—a case-study. System, 30(2), 207 223. Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language testing, 13(3), 257-279.
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Bracey, G. W. (1987). Measurement-Driven Instruction: Catchy Phrase, Dangerous Practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(9), 683-86.
  5. Brunfaut, T. (2014). A lifetime of language testing: An interview with J. Charles Alderson. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), 103-119.
  6. Burrows, C. (2004). Washback in classroom-based assessment: A study of the washback effect in the Australian adult migrant English program. In L.Cheng& Y. Watanebe (withA.Curis) (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp.113-128).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cheng, L. (2001). Washback studies: Methodological considerations. In Curriculum Forum (Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 17-32).
  7. Cheng, L.,& Curtis, A. (2004). Washback or backwash: A review of the impact of testing on teaching and learning. In L.Cheng and Y. Watanabe (eds.) with A. Curtis (eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods, (pp.3-17).
  8. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Cheng, L. (2008). Washback, impact and consequences. In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 2479-2494).
  10. Springer US. Davison, C. (2004). The contradictory culture of teacher-based assessment: ESL teacher assessment practices in Australian and Hong Kong secondary schools. Language Testing, 21(3), 305-334.
  11. Hamp-Lyons, L., Hood, S., & MacLennan, C. (2001). Promoting Quality Teaching in the Tertiary Context. Higher Education Review, 34(1), 60-76.
  12. Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2016). The impact of the University Entrance Exam on EFL education in Turkey: Preservice English language teachers’ perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 136-144.
  13. Hughes, A. (2003). Testing English for