KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2026 / Volume: 13 Issue: 2

The effect of alternative assessment applications on students’ academic achievement in an English preparatory school

Hüsnü Gümüş(PAMUKKALE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-4055-8805
Turan Paker(Pamukkale Üniversitesi)0000-0002-3941-3975
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-02-15
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In addition, the qualitative data revealed that the use of alternative assessment applications provided several affective and instructional benefits for the participants in the experimental group.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This mixed-method research aims to investigate the impact of alternative assessment applications on the achievement scores of a group of Turkish EFL students and explore their views and feelings regarding these applications.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The participants were 66 preparatory class students; the experimental group included 32 and the control group 34 students.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In addition, the qualitative data revealed that the use of alternative assessment applications provided several affective and instructional benefits for the participants in the experimental group.
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Testing and assessment · Alternative assessment tools · English as a foreign language

Özet

This mixed-method research aims to investigate the impact of alternative assessment applications on the achievement scores of a group of Turkish EFL students and explore their views and feelings regarding these applications. For this purpose, a quasi-experimental design was employed. The participants were 66 preparatory class students; the experimental group included 32 and the control group 34 students. The experimental group was engaged in several different alternative assessment methods and tasks that incorporated all four language skills (i.e., reading, listening, speaking, and writing). In contrast, the control group received traditional instruction (i.e., the standard textbook exercises and worksheets as homework) in line with the policy of the school. During the process, the performances of the experimental group were assessed and evaluated formatively by means of predetermined rubrics throughout the process. On the other hand, the control group's performance was measured using conventional assessment tools such as standardized written exams, tests, and quizzes. Consequently, the quantitative data were obtained via traditional examinations, whereas qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews. The quantitative data were analyzed using Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), while qualitative data were examined through content analysis procedures. The results of the quantitative analysis indicated that the use of alternative assessment tools positively influenced the achievement scores of the experimental group and contributed to the development of their four language skills. In addition, the qualitative data revealed that the use of alternative assessment applications provided several affective and instructional benefits for the participants in the experimental group.

Abstract

This mixed-method research aims to investigate the impact of alternative assessment applications on the achievement scores of a group of Turkish EFL students and explore their views and feelings regarding these applications. For this purpose, a quasi-experimental design was employed. The participants were 66 preparatory class students; the experimental group included 32 and the control group 34 students. The experimental group was engaged in several different alternative assessment methods and tasks that incorporated all four language skills (i.e., reading, listening, speaking, and writing). In contrast, the control group received traditional instruction (i.e., the standard textbook exercises and worksheets as homework) in line with the policy of the school. During the process, the performances of the experimental group were assessed and evaluated formatively by means of predetermined rubrics throughout the process. On the other hand, the control group's performance was measured using conventional assessment tools such as standardized written exams, tests, and quizzes. Consequently, the quantitative data were obtained via traditional examinations, whereas qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews. The quantitative data were analyzed using Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), while qualitative data were examined through content analysis procedures. The results of the quantitative analysis indicated that the use of alternative assessment tools positively influenced the achievement scores of the experimental group and contributed to the development of their four language skills. In addition, the qualitative data revealed that the use of alternative assessment applications provided several affective and instructional benefits for the participants in the experimental group.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Gümüş, H., Paker, T. (2026). The effect of alternative assessment applications on students’ academic achievement in an English preparatory school. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Volume: 13 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1681876

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (54)

  1. Al Alhareth, Y., & Al Dighrir, I. (2014). The assessment process of pupils’ learning in Saudi education system: A literature review’. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(10), 883-891. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-2-10-6
  2. Alderson, J., & Banerjee, J. (2001). Language testing and assessment. Language Teaching, 34, 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444802001751
  3. Al Sadaawi, A.S. (2010). Saudi national assessment of educational progress (SNAEP). International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 5(11), 1 14. https://doi.org/10.22230/ijepl.2010v5n11a202
  4. Arslan, R.Ş., & Gümüş, S.N. (2020). The effect of portfolio-keeping on EFL young learners’ writing achievement and their motivation towards writing. Journal of Narrative and Language Studies, 8(14), 130–150. https://nalans.com/index.php/nalans/article/view/240
  5. Brooks, M., & Brooks, J. (2001). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Merrill Prentice Hall.
  6. Brown, J.D., & Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 653-675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587999
  7. Brown, H.D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. Longman.
  8. Burnaz, E.Y. (2011). Perceptions of EFL learners towards portfolios as a method of alternative assessment: A case study at a Turkish state university [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University.
  9. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2013). Sosyal Bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum [Data analysis handbook for the social sciences: Statistics, research design, SPSS applications, and interpretation]. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  10. Cresswell, J.W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating qualitative and quantitative research (4th Ed.). Pearson Education Inc.
  11. Creswell, J.W., & Plano-Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
  12. Çakir, C. (2013). Standard assessment and alternative assessment in English language teaching program. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty 33 (3), 531-548.
  13. Demirel, M., & Duman, H. (2015). The use of portfolio in English language teaching and its effects on achievement and attitude. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 191, 2634–2640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.598.
  14. Dochy, F. (2001). A new era: Different needs, new challenges. Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction 2(1), 11-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00022-0.
  15. Fajarsari, L.A. (2016). Students’ perceptions to alternative assessment in English learning at SMA Kristen Satya Wacana Salatiga [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Satya Wacana Christian University.
  16. Farahian, M., & Avarzamani, F. (2018). The impact of portfolio on EFL learners’ metacognition and writing performance. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018. 1450918.
  17. Fathi, J., Derakhshan, A., & Safdari, M. (2020). The impact of portfolio-based writing instruction on writing performance and anxiety of EFL students. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 51(3), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.24425/ppb.2020.134729.
  18. Fathi, J., Afzali, M., & Parsa, K. (2021). Self-assessment and peer-assessment in EFL Context: An investigation of writing performance and writing self-efficacy. Critical Literary Studies, 3(1), 211-232.
  19. French, A., Macedo, M., Poulsen, J., Waterson, T., & Yu, A. (2008). Multivariate analysis of variance. San Francisco State University. http://userwww.sfsu.edu/efc/classes/biol710/manova/manovanewest.htm
  20. Frey, B. B., & Schmitt, V. L. (2007). Coming to terms with classroom assessment. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3), 402-423. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2007-495
  21. Frost, J. (2014). The power of multivariate analysis of variance. Minitab. http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/the-power-of-multivariate-anova-manova
  22. Greenstein, L. (2010). What teachers really need to know about formative assessment. ASCD.
  23. Harland, B. (2015). The advantages of MANOVA over ANOVA. Sciencing. http://www.ehow.com/info_8291160_advantages-manova-over-anova.html
  24. Herdiawan, D.R. (2018). Communicative competences in EFL learning. Journal of English Language Learning, 2(1), 43-46.
  25. Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
  26. İlin, G., & Yıldırım, R. (2014). English level determination exam from the perspectives of primary school english teachers. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(35), 157-170. https://doi.org/10.9779/PUJE608
  27. Iraji, H.R., Enayat, M.J., & Momeni, M. (2016). The effects of self- and peer-assessment on Iranian EFL learners' argumentative writing performance. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(4), 716–722. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0604.08
  28. Javaherbakhsh, M.R. (2010). The impact of self-assessment on Iranian EFL learners' writing skill. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 213-218. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n2p213.
  29. Kavaliauskienė, G., Kaminskienė, L., & Anusienė, L. (2007). Reflective practice: Assessment of assignments in English for specific purposes. Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes, 14, 149–166.
  30. Kırkgöz, Y. (2007). English language teaching in Turkey: Policy changes and their implementations. Regional Language Centre Journal, 38(2), 216-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688207079
  31. Kırkgöz, Y., & Ağçam, R. (2012). Investigating the written assessment practices of Turkish teachers of English at primary education. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8(2), 119-136.
  32. Kızıl, V. (2019). Peer assessment in EFL writing classes. The Journal of International Lingual Social and Educational Sciences, 5(1), 101-111. https://doi.org/10.34137/jilses.560099.
  33. Koh, K.H. (2017). Authentic assessment. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press.
  34. Lizasoain, A., & Zárate, A.O. (2014). Alternative evaluation of a traditional oral skill assessment tool in an English teaching program. The LEC Journal, 1, 21–36.
  35. Medfouni, I. (2014). The impact of self and peer assessment on EFL students’ essay writing skills. The Case of third–year L.M.D students of English [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. University of Oum El Bouaghi.
  36. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd Ed.). Sage.
  37. Nasab, F.G. (2015). Alternative versus traditional assessment. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(6), 165-178.
  38. Obeiah, S.F., & Bataineh, R.F. (2016). The effect of portfolio-based assessment on Jordanian EFL learners’ writing performance. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 9(1), 32-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.629
  39. Özuslu, N. (2018). An evaluation of the performance assessment component of an EFL preparatory school program [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Yeditepe University.
  40. Paker, T. (2006). Çal bölgesindeki okullarda İngilizce öğretiminin sorunları ve çözüm önerileri [Problems and proposed solutions for teaching English in schools in the Çal region]. Çal Sempozyumu, 684-690.
  41. Paker, T. (2012). Türkiye’de neden yabancı dil (İngilizce) öğretemiyoruz ve neden öğrencilerimiz iletişim kurabilecek düzeyde İngilizce öğrenemiyor? [Why can’t we teach English as a foreign language and why can’t our students learn English to be able to communicate in English?]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(32), 89-94. https://doi.org/10.9779/PUJE563
  42. Perlman, C. (2003). Performance assessment: Designing appropriate performance. U.S. Department of Education.
  43. Pesen, S.N. (2016). Using drama and music portfolio as an alternative assessment for developing ELT learners’ speaking skills [Unpublished Master’s thesis]. Gazi University.
  44. Reeves, T.C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 101 111. https://doi.org/10.2190/GYMQ-78FA-WMTX-J06C
  45. Remesal, A. (2011). Primary and secondary teachers’ conceptions of assessment: A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 472-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.017
  46. Richards, J.C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. 3rd Ed. Longman.
  47. Safari, M., & Koosha, M. (2016). Instructional efficacy of portfolio for assessing Iranian EFL learners’ speaking ability. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 102-116. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n3p102
  48. Seçer, İ. (2015). SPSS ve Lisrel ile pratik veri analizi: Analiz ve raporlaştırma [Practical data analysis with SPSS and Lisrel: Analysis and reporting]. Anı Publishing.
  49. Shakoori, A.M. (2022). Alternative assessments and English language enhancement: Perspectives of Saudi EFL undergraduate students [Unpublished Doctoral thesis] University of Arizona, Tucson, USA.
  50. Sidek, H.M. (2012). EFL reading instruction: Communicative task-based approach. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 109-128.
  51. Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324-328.
  52. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education, Inc.
  53. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  54. Yurdabakan, I., & Erdogan, T. (2009). The effect of portfolio assessment on reading, listening, and writing skills of secondary school prep class students. The Journal of International Social Research, 2(9), 526-538.