EDUP 3153 TASK 2

other hand, is based on collecting information about what the students do and know. In other words, students are given the exact procedures for administering and scoring in testing. In assessment, on the other hand, there are multiple methods of collecting information at different times and contexts (Law and Eckes;1995). Dietel, Herman, and Knuth (1991) define assessment as a method applied for getting better understanding of a current knowledge that the students possess. According to Mitchell (1992) and Law and Eckes (1995) testing is defined as the singleoccasion, unidimensional, timed exercise, usually take the form of multiple choices or shortanswer form. Almost recently, it is said that there is not only one way of gathering information about student learning. Furthermore, testing is seen as only one part of assessment and a broader concept of assessment is being widely used (Kulieke, Bakker, Collins, Fennimore, Fine, Herman, Jones, Raack, and Tinzman, 1990).The reformation actions that take place in the educational system all over the world in general and in the process of English language testing and assessment in particular identifies two common approaches(techniques) of assessments; the “traditional” and “alternative” assessments. The the dramatical and the radical shift from the old (traditional testing and assessment) to the renewal or the alternative testing and assessments are given much attentions by the specialists and the educationalist alike. Smith (1999) refers to alternative assessment as an ongoing technique that takes place inside or outside the classroom at different occusions when the subjects are required to reveal their knowledge in different ways. Kohonen (1997) uses the term alternative and authentic assessment interchangeably to refer to the evaluations made to reflect the students' learning and achievement besides their motivations and attitudes. These evaluations are said to finally make a better instruction. Alderson and Banerjee (2001) consider alternative assessment formative in function with a beneficial wash-back effect. The shifts from traditional assessment towards alternative assessments are usually attributed to the urgent needs for new techniques constituents that match the developments in the sciences and the modern era including the pedagogical systems.Therefore, alternative assessment is emerged as a means for educational reformation as a result of the increasing awareness of the influence of testing on curriculum and instruction (Dietel, Herman, and Knuth, 1991). Similarly, Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3214

Reeves(2000) states that word traditional assessment, which is usually so-called testing, is challenged by alternative assessment approaches. It has been noticed that English language teachers in general including; the Iraqi are unalert of the traditional and alternative assessments, if not they are almost ignorant of how to distinguish or to prctise them in their teaching and testing. Therefore, the present paper is an attempt to assess the Iraqi EFL teachers' alert and prctise of traditional and alternative assessments. Aims The present study aims at: 1. Providing a due account regarding the common definitions of the traditional and alternative assessments, the differences between them, and the advantages and the disadvantages of each one. 2. Assessing the Iraqi EFL teachers' alert of the distinctions between the traditional and alternative assessments. 3. Assessing the Iraqi EFL teachers' prctice of the traditional or the alternative assessments in their classrooms. Limits The study is limited to: 1. Iraqi EFL teachers who teach English language at intermediate and preparatory schools. 2. Directory of Education in the Wassit province. 3. The academic year (2019-2020). Hypotheses It is hypothesized that: 1. Iraqi EFL teachers are alert of the distinction between traditional and alternative assessments. 2. Iraqi EFL teachers prctise modren techniques like alternative assessments in their testing due to that alert. Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3215

Procedures The following procedures are followed to achieve the proposed aims and to verify hypotheses: 1. Selecting a sample of Iraqi EFL teachers; 2. Creating the tools (an interview and a questionnaire) to achieve the aims of the study and to verify its hypotheses; 3. Analyzing and discussing the obtained results. Section Two: Theoretical Background Traditional and Alternative Assessments: Similarities and Differences It has been observed that the shifts from the psychometric (traditional) to alternative approaches of assessment are found as a reaction due to the insufficient and outdated methods that are no longer suffice the pedagoegical needs. Hamayan (1995) asserts that alternative assessment represents the authentic procedures within the pedagogical domain which are a part of the daily classroom activities. In addition to that the interest in adopting non-traditional forms of assessment in the classroom reflects the innovative paradigm in the educational system in general and in the target language teaching in particular. The following table simplifies the main differences between that two paradigms: Old Paradigm New Paradigm focus on language focus on communication teacher-centered learner-centered isolated skills integrated skills emphasis on product emphasis on process one answer, one-way correctness open-ended, multiple solutions tests that test tests that also teach (Richard and Renandya,1988) Furthermore, alternative assessment differs from the traditional one in that it focuses on what the students can do, i., e., the students’ performance is measured and evaluated on what they are able to produce rather than on what they are able to recall and reproduce.’ (ibid). The Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3216

following are some features state how the alternative assessment is an alternative to the traditional one: 1. it does not need a different amount of time to be applied. 2. it reflects the curriculum since it is based on daily classroom activities. 3. it provides information on the strengths and weaknesses of the students since the information gathered is based on real-life situations 4. it provides a menu of possibilities rather than any one single method of assessment; therefore, information is more valuable since it comes from various sources 5. it is more multicultural sensitive and free of norm, linguistic and cultural biases. On the other hand, Bailey (1998) also distinguishes the traditional assessments by two attributes: 1.traditional assessments are indirect and inauthentic. 2.traditional assessment is standardized and for that reason, they are one-shot, speedbased, and norm-referenced. Law and Eckes (1995) assert that traditional assessments are single-occasion tests since they measure what learners can do at a particular time. Bailey (1998) also adds that there is no feedback provided to learners in the traditional assessment. The projects are almost individualized in nature and the assessment procedures are decontextualized. Law and Eckes (1995) states that the traditional assessments are standardized tests that assess only the lower-order thinking skills of the learners. Smaldino et al. (2000) confirm that traditional assessments often focus on learners’ memorization and recall ability which are lower level of cognitive skills.Traditional assessment tools require learners to display their knowledge in a predetermined way (Brualdi, 1996). Alternative assessments, on the other hand, assess higher-order thinking skills. Students have the opportunity to demonstrate what they learned. This type of assessment tools focus on the growth and the performance of the student. That is, if a learner fails to perform a given task at a particular time, s/he still has the opportunity to demonstrate his/her ability at a different time and different situation. Since alternative assessment is developed in context and over time, the teacher has a chance to measure the strengths and weaknesses of the student in a variety of areas and situations (Law and Eckes, 1995). Winking (1997) said that alternative assessments assist the teachers to have a better understanding of the student learning. That is, looking at the student product rather than scores Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3217

can enable instructors to get ongoing insights regarding the students’ knowledge and skills (Niguidila, 1993). The following table shows the contrasts between the traditional and alternative assessment as mentined by Bailey (1998) : Traditional Alternative One-shot tests Continuous, longitudinal assessment Indirect tests Direct tests Inauthentic tests Authentic tests Individual projects Group projects No feedback provided to learners Feedback provided to learners Speeded exams Untimed exams Decontextualized test tasks Contextualized test tasks Norm-referenced score interpretation Criterion-referenced score interpretation Standardized tests Classroom-based tests. Types of Alternative Assessments The following figure illustrates the main types of alternative assessments: Alternative Assessments Open-ended questions Writing samples Performance-based Story and text retelling Interviews Cloze test Teaccher observation Portfolios Projects Role playing Exhibitions Demonstrations Experiments Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3218

Types of Traditional Assessments The following figure illustrates the main types of traditional assessments: Traditional and Alternanative Assessment: Advantages and Disadvantages There is no approach of assessment and testing all over the world, despite its usability, without suffers. In this regard, the following are some advantages and disadvantages of the traditional alternative assessments: Advantages of Traditional assessment: 1. Traditional assessment is quick to administer and score and scoring is relatively objective 2. Only one correct answer. 3. Can be used to make analysis to the class 4. Easy to score and mark 5. Scoring is objective (Dikli, 2003) Disadvantages: 1. In the traditional assessment students are not measured or assessed on the basis of producing language than measuring only some receptive skills by the seleted-response assessment. 2. The quality tests are difficult to construct and these tests fail to assess the students' productive language skills as mentioned earlier. Traditional Assessments MCQs items T/F items Short answer questions YeslNo questions Matching Essays Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3219

3. They put much emphasis on the tests that are conceived as showing the students' educational abilities so, they fail to assess the multi-dimensional aspects of what students have already learned (Mathies, 2000). 4. They compare students' performances against one another, criterion referenced assessment compares the students' performances against set standards (Tanner, 2001). There has been a shift of emphasis towards authentic assessment with a focus on a need for the so-called holistic approaches to make judgments on students' performances in the educational environment. Advantages of Alternative Assessment Proponents of alternative assessment mention many merites of this approach from these benefits are: 1. It creates tasks that are clearly aligned to expectations and what was taught. 2. It allows for differentiation to support individual learners. 3. It takes place over a greater period of time and allows students to self-assess and peerassess. 4. It allows for a broader, more in-depth looks at knowledge acquisition. 5. It easily shows relevance to real-life situations 6. It assesses higher-order thinking skills 7. It goes far beyond rote learning and memorization besides engaging the students in carrying out tasks which in one way or another involve them in some sort of problemsolving activities. 8. puts forward a variant number of engaging tasks for the students in situations which are real world or simulation of real-world situations. As Wiggins (1990) claims, authentic assessment avails students with a wide range of skills and illuminates whether they have gained the ability to construct valid answers to the tasks presented. Moreover, he asserts that this kind of assessment sets a standardized criterion for scoring the tasks at hand by being highly reliable. 9. Campbell (2000) defines 'authentic assessment' in terms of critical thinking and applied knowledge with validity as a fundamental criterion. Ewing (1998) regards authentic assessment as a meaningful learning experience with the genuine involvement of the students to carry out a project. He moves a number of limitations concerning traditional Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3220

10. assessment among which are a) the inflexibility to reduce content and, b) establishing what is already taught. 11. It paves the way for a direct measurement of students' achievement on tasks through flexible methods. Authenticity is to bridge the gap between artificiality and decontextualization on the one hand and realism on the other (Segers et al, 2003). 12. It tries to understand learning complexities through exploring a relationship between knowledge and social interaction (Cumming & Maxwell, 1999). 13. It aims to process-oriented in its evaluating besides the product of learning behaviors. (Morris, 2001). 14. It provides a connection to cognitive psychology and other related fields 15. It gives due weight to the collaborative approach of learning 16. It is ongoing in nature; it can signify the learners' language proficiency and mirror the developmental processes in the educational environment over time. Thus, it becomes possible to focus both on the process and product of learning (Hamayan, 1995). 17. It makes a link between assessment and instruction by taking account of a 'feedback loop' which allows instructors to monitor and modify instruction continuously based on 18. what is already assessed. In other words, if the objectives of a set instructional program are met then the process is continued. Otherwise, it is revised (Genesee & Hamayan, 1994). It is taken for granted that the obtained information from alternative assessment is more informative compared to traditional test scores (Alderson & Banerjee, 2001). It therefore provides advantages to students and their parents as well as the administrators and teachers (Hamayan, 1195). 19. It allows the students to gain a better understanding of their accomplishments and to take more responsibility for their own learning (Hamayan,1995). 19.Alternative assessment provides teachers with opportunities to record the success or failure of a curriculum which helps to present a better framework for organizing the learners' achievement (Luoma & Tarnanen, 2003). 20. It is congruent with the cognitive psychology framework in that it regards learning to proceed in an uneven pace rather than a linear fashion. 21. It allows the interaction of students and teachers in the learning process (Barootchi & Keshvarz, 2002). This collaboration in turn enhances students' self-esteem, sense of efficacy and intrinsic learning motivation (Broadfoot, 2003). Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3221

Disdvantages of the Alternative Assessment 1. It is time-consuming and costly for teachers to have a thoughtful analysis of the tests to provide accurate feedback to the learners (Brindley, 2001). 2. Teachers have to be skillful enough to be able to imply the different methods of alternative assessment successfully (Clark & Gipps, 2000). 3. Learners also require a great deal of guidelines and supervisions which is not realized if they are accustomed to traditional assessment practices. 4. It is open to criticism in terms of psychometric qualities of validity, reliability and practicality (Brown & Hudson, 1998). Above all, practitioners have doubts about the possibility of the true application of this kind of assessment to largescale classes (Worthen, 1993). Section Three: Procedures Methodology The aim of present study is to assess the Iraqi EFL teachers' alert and practise of the traditional and alternative assessments. Different perspectives are taken into consideration by designing the questionnaire and the interviewing groups of teachers. The following sections are intended to provide a detailed description of the procedures for the sample’s selection and the data collection. Participants One hundred (male and female) teachers are selected from the Directory of Education in Wassit province. Purposive sampling (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1990) is used to select the participants with a set of pre-defined characteristics; that is, the teachers should have had at least 5 years of teaching experience. The participants are either known to one of the researchers or selected by the directory of education by consulting senior or professional teachers in the field. All the respondents are approached by the researchers (the interviewer) who explained the nature of the study for them. They are assured of the confidentiality of the information they would provide and their free will to participate in the study. The participants’ age ranged from 30 to 40 with an average of 10.5 years of teaching experience. The participants had all been teaching at different proficiency levels and had the experience of attending teacher training courses (as both pre-service and in-service teachers) in either public or private teacher education centers. Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3222

Instrument and Data Collections Following the established practice in research related to pedagogical knowledge, a mixed of qualitative and quantitative mode of inquiry is used for data collection (Ben-Peretz, 2011). More precisely, since the primary aim of the study is to investigate teachers' alert and practise of traditional and alternative assessments, we adopted grounded theory, a research approach in which the theory emerges from the data (Creswell, Hanson, Plano, & Morales, 2007). Data is collected through separate interviews, which is the most commonly used technique in grounded theory (Petty, Thomson, & Stew, 2012). This technique is especially useful in applied linguistics when the aim is investigating participants’ beliefs and orientations (Mann, 2011). The qualitative mode of the study is done by an interview questions had an open-ended (questionnaire) nature and aimed at drawing the participants’ ideas about the traditional and alternative assessments as pedagogical knowledge of English teacher to find out their use of these assessments. The guideline is then piloted by interviewing an English teacher and a teacher educator, leading to the modification of some of the questions as well as the addition of a number of new ones. In order to come up with comparable data, the same guideline is used for interviewing all the three groups of stakeholders. After finalizing the interview guideline, the participants attended separate semi-structured interviews which were conducted by the researcher. The interviewees worked in various institutions; therefore, the interviewer set an appointment with the individual participants in order to meet them in their office or working place. Because all the respondents were advanced English speakers, the interviews were conducted in English. The interviews lasted between 21 to 44 minutes (an average of 32.66 minutes). They were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The other mode of inquiry is done by a closed-end questionnaire in which the participants are required to tick (yes) and (no) depending on their answers to the question raised. This questionnaire is also intended to find out the teachers' practice of the traditional or alternative assessments. A pilot study is also done on a sample of teachers to secure reliability, validity and discriminating power of each items. Moreover, the face validity of the questionnaire is secured by exposing it to a jury member of specialists in ELT from different colleges. They prove their validity and suitability. Construct validity is also secured by applying Chi sequre and Allph cronbach formula. Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3223

Section Four: Findings and Discussion Results Related to the First Aim As mentioned previously that the first aim is to assess Iraqi EFL teachers' alert of the distinction between the traditional and alternative assessments. To achieve this aim one instrument (an interview) is administered on the sample of the study (see appendix 1). The results obtained are statistically analyzed to calculate and to find out the arithmetic mean and the standard deviation. To state the significance of the difference between the arithmetic and the theoretical mean in each scale, t-test for one independent sample is manipulated. Teachers' Alert of the Traditional and Alternative Assessments Table (1) below states that the arithmetic mean of participants' scores in the scale (interview) is 39.6 with a standard deviation 6.80 while the theoretical mean is 43. The computed t-test value is 4.250 which is higher than the critical one which is 3. Table (1) T-test Value of the Significance of Difference Between the Arithmetic and Theoretical Means of the Participants' Scores in the Alert Scale Variable N Arithmetic Mean S. d Theoretical Mean T-test Value Level of Significance d.f Computed Critical IraqiEFL teachers’ Alert of Traditional and Alternative Assessments 100 39.6 6.80 43 4.250 3 In favor of the theoretical mean 65 By applying the t-test value for one independent sample we notice that the computed tvalue is higher than the tabulated (critical) value and this in turn means that the results are in favor of the theoretical mean. This also reveals that there is a statistically significant difference between the two mean scores. Therefore, Iraqi ELT teachers are unalert of the alternative and traditional assessments. The teachers’ responses to the questionnaire also showed that: Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3224

1. The teachers were traditional in their assessing and these traditional assesments they use are very outdated due to what they were really used to prctise not what they are supposed to be innovative in their testing. 2. They depended on tests that are easy to score and mark and this in turn reveals that teachers’ unawareness of the latest techniques. 3. They were not acquainted with the recent and latest techniques of assessmnts. 4. Most of them have no idea about the term “alternative assessments” due to their unaeareness and being dependent on traditional assessments. 5. Most of the teachers tend to have ready made tests and assessment which were set by their collegues or found on some teachers’ pages. Results Related to the Second Aim The second aim of the study is to find out Iraqi EFL teachers' practice of the traditional or alternative assessments. To achieve this aim an instrument in a form of a questionnaire is administered on the sample of the study (see appendix 2). The data collected is statistically manipulated to calculate and to find out the arithmetic mean and the standard deviation. To find out the significance of the difference between the arithmetic mean and the theoretical one in each scale, t-test for one independent sample is used. Iraqi EFL Teachers' practise of Alternative and Traditional Assessments Table (2) illustrated that the arithmetic mean of participants' scores in the scale(questionnaire) is 11.55 with a standard deviation 4.32 while the theoretical mean is 14. The computed t-test value is 5.33 which is higher than the critical one which is 3. Table (2) T-test Value of the Significance of Difference Between the Arithmetic and Theoretical Means of the Participants' Scores in the (Practise) Scale Variable N Arithmetic Mean Sd Theoretical Mean T-test Value Level of Significance d.f Computed Critical practice of traditional and alternative assessments 100 11.55 4.32 14 5.33 3 In favor of the theoretical mean 59 Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3225

By applying the t-test value for one independent sample we notice that the computed tvalue is higher than the tabulated (critical) and in favor of the theoretical mean. This reveals that the sample is week in this test. This also shows a significant difference between the two means in this scale in favor of the theoretical mean. Therefore, Iraqi EFL teachers almost don’t practice alternative assessments since they used to use the traditional ones. The results analysis also showed the following points: 1. Iraqi EFL teachers were not acquainted with the latest techniques of assessments. 2. They depended on the traditional types since they are easy to set and mark. 3. They used to have one format of assessments. Conclusions According to the results of the study, it is concluded that: 1. Iraqi EFL teachers are unalert of the new techniques like the alternative assessments in their teaching and testing; that is, they assess their students without having, if any, ideas about the distinctions between the traditional and alternative assessments. 2. Iraqi EFL teachers do not practise the alternative assessments in the teaching and testing processes including; teaching any lessons and activities, setting objectives, planning a lesson or setting tests because they ignore these types of assessments. Recommendations According to the conclusions of the study, it is recommended that: 1. Alert the Iraqi EFL teachers' awareness of the traditional and the alternative assessments by holding the interviews with them or giving them training courses in this regard. 2. Providing a due account in the Teachers' book; presenting the teachers with the recent techniques of assessments and the distinctions between the traditional and the alternative ones besides when and where to use themdepending on the aims and the goals of the lessons. 3. Highlighting the importance of the latest types of assessments and their crutial roles they play in language teaching and testing since no single lesson or activity can be carried out without having knowledge of these types of assessments. Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3226

References Ary, D., Jacobs, C., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Introduction to research in education. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Ben-Peretz, M. (2011). Teacher knowledge: What is it? How do we uncover it? What are its implications for schooling? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 3-9. Alderson, J. C. and Banerjee, J. (2001). Language testing and assessment (Part 1). Language Teaching, 34 (4), 213-236. Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment: dilemmas, decisions, and directions. Heinle & Heinle: US. Bailey, K. M. (1999). Washback in Language Testing. TOEFL Monograph Series MS- 15. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Barootchi, N., & Keshavarz, M. H. (2002). Assessment of achievement through portfolios and teacher-made tests. Educational Research, 44(3), 279-288 Brindley, G. (2001). Outcomes-based assessment in practice: some examples and emerging insights. Language Testing, 18(4), 393-407. Broadfoot, P. M. ed. (1986). Profiles and records of achievement. London: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson. Broadfoot, P. M. (2003). Dark Alleys and Blind Bends: Testing the Language of Learning. Paper presented over the 25th Language Testing Research Colloquium, 22-25 July, University of Reading. Brown, J. B. and Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment’ TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 653-675. Brown, S. & Knight, P. (1994). Assessing Learners in Higher Education, London: Kogan Page. Clark, S. and Gipps, C. (2000). The role of teachers in teacher assessment in England 1996-1998. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14, 38-52. Cumming, J, J, & Maxwell, G. S. (1999). Contextualizing authentic assessment [Electronic version]. Assessment in Education, 6, 177-194. Cummings, J. J. & Maxwell, G. S. (1999). Contextualizing authentic assessment, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(2), 177-194. Dietel, R. J., Herman, J. L., & Knuth, R. A. (1991). What does research say about assessment? NCREL, Oak Brook. Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3227

Dikli, S. (2003). Assessment at a distance: traditional vs.alternative assessments. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3), 2, 13-19. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tojet.net/articles/232.pdf Ewing, S. C. (1998). Alternative assessment: popularity, pitfalls, and potential [Electronic version]. Assessment Update, 10, 1-2, 11-12. Hamayan, E. V. (1995). Approaches to Alternative Assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 212-226. Kohonen, V. (1997). Authentic Assessment as an Integration of Language Learning, Teaching, Evaluation and the Teacher’s Professional Growth. In Current Development and Alternatives in Language Assessment: Proceedings of LTRC 1996, eds. A., Huhta, V. Cohonen, L. Kurki-Suonio and S. Luoma. University of Jyvaskyla: Jyvaskyla. Pp.7- 22. Kulieke, M., Bakker, J., Collins, C., Fennimore, T., Fine, C., Herman, J., Jones, B.F., Raack, L., & Tinzmann, M.B. (1990). Why should assessment be based on a vision of learning? [online document] NCREL, Oak Brook: IL. Available online:http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl_esys/assess.htm Law, B. & Eckes, M. (1995). Assessment and ESL. Peguis publishers: Manitoba, Canada. Law, B. & Eckes, M. (1995). Assessment and ESL. Peguis publishers: Manitoba, Canada. Luoma, S. and Tarnanen, M. (2003). Creating a self-rating instrument for L2 writing:from idea to implementation. Language Testing, 20(4), 440-465. Morris, R. V. (2001). Drama and authentic assessment in a social studies classroom.Social Studies, 92, 41-44. Niguidula, D. (1993). The digital portfolio: a richer picture of student performance [online document]. CES National. Available online: http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/225 Segers, M., Dochy, F. & Cascallar, E. (2003). The era of assessment engineering: Changing perspectives on teaching and learning and the role of new model of assessment, 1, 1-12 Smith, K. (1999). Language Testing: Alternative Methods. In Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics, ed. B. Spolsky. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 703-706. Tanner, D. E. (2001). Authentic assessment: A solution, or part of the problem? High School Journal, 85, 24-29. Winking, D. (1997). Critical issue: Ensuring equity with alternative assessments [onlinedocument]. NCREL (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory), OakBrook:IL. Availableonline: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/methods/assment/as800. Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3228

Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 328 611). Worthen, B. R (1993). Critical issues that will determine the future of alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 444-456. Appendix (1) The interview guideline Introduction The purpose of our study is to assess Iraqi EFL teachers' alert and practice of traditional and alternative assessments. To probe into this matter, the researcher has decided to interview English language teachers to know your ideas in this regard. If you do not have any question, we can start with the interview. Warm up: 1.Would you please introduce yourself? • Name and age • Degree and major • kind of teaching experience you have • Past/present school/institution (private sector/public sector/both) • Age and level of students (for teachers and language teacher supervisors) • How many hours per week? 2. What made you become a teacher? Why do you choose teaching? 3.What do you like more about teaching? 4.When you hear the word “teaching”, what words or images come to your mind? Main questions: 1. How many types of teset and assessments do we have? (4) 2. what are the traditional and alternative assessments? (2) 3. what are the most important types of assessments? why? (2) 4. Have you ever heard about the terms “traditional” and “alternative assessments? (1) 5. what is meant by traditional assessments? (1) Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3229

6. what is meant by alternative assessments? (1) 7. Do you think it is necessary to use alternative assessment? (1) 8. What are the other names of traditional and alternative assessments? (2) 9. Do you use and adopt traditional or alternative assessments in your assessing of the students’performance? (1) 10. When and where do you use them? (2) 11. Give some examples of the traditional(old) types of assessments? (3) 12. Give some examples of the micro and macro speaking skills? (3) 13. Give some examples of modren (alternative) assessmnets? (2) 14. Do you depend on ready downloaded types of assessments? (1) 15. Give some of the micro and macro writing skills? (2) 16. Are you able to distinguish between types of alternative and traditional assessments? 17. Do you ever try to use new techneques of assessments? (1) Appendix (2) The questionnaire guideline Read the following items that are found in the following table carefully, then tick (yes) for the items of the assessments you really adopt in your assessing and evaluating of the students’ performance and achievements and (no) for the items of the assessments you don’t do so: Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3230

No. Items Yes No 1 I focus on the assessments that are process-oriented 2 I use assessments that focus on the language product rather the process 3 I use tests that refelect the students’ learning achievements as well as the other psychological factors like: motivations and attitudes. 4 I make use of the tests for improving instructions, curriculum, and methods of teaching besides making remedial actions 5 I use authentic tests that match the authentic material teaching. 6 I focus on language in my assessments 7 I consider the communications in my assessing 8 My assessments are student- centered 9 My assessments are teacher-centered 10 I emphasize on what the students are able to recall and remember 11 My tests give feedback to the students 12 My tests give me better understandings of the students’ learning 13 I use tests that assess group projets 14 My assessments are contextualized 15 I use tests that are class room-based 16 My assessments are norm-refrenced 17 I pay attention to the results more than the causes of the students’failure 18 I use tests that assess higher-order of thinking 19 I use alternative technique for assessing daily classroom activities 20 I consider the latest theories of testing in my assessments Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology Volume XII, Issue II, 2020 Issn No : 1006-7930 Page No: 3231

rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 61 Traditional and Alternative Assessments in ELT: Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions MARISSA PHONGSIRIKUL Department of Western Languages, Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand Author e-mail: [email protected] The study aimed to investigate teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards traditional and alternative types of assessment within a classroom context of an English course provided for English-majoring students at tertiary level. A combination of traditional and alternative as sessment tools was implemented in the study. The researcher developed iPortfolio, WeCreate Activity, and iLearn & Teach Project as alternative assessment tools, while paper-and-pencil quizzes and exams were used as traditional assessment tools. The questionnaires were used to gather the information concerning students’ and teachers’ perceptions towards the overall features of the assessment tools and their effectiveness. The participants consisted of 103 students and 5 teachers. The findings showed that both teachers and students generally place a higher value on traditional assessment tools especially in terms of their validity and reliability. However, they expressed ideas indicating the possibility of using alternative assessment tools as assessment tools and catalysts for learning motivation in other English skill courses. Keywords traditional assessment, alternative assessment, grammar assessment, students and teachers’ perceptions INTRODUCTION Teachers are mostly required to assess their students’ progress and achievement as part of an educational system and that is why assessment is also a part of a teacher’s job. Assessment is also important for students. Even though the idea of having a test generally scares some students (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010), most of them also like to be assessed. They might want to know how much progress they have made during their learning process and how advanced they are at the end of the course compared to their other classmates. Formal assessment and informal assessment both help motivate students in their learning. Assessment can therefore be considered as an indispensable part and a motivating factor in English language teaching. To use assessment most effectively, assessment should also be an element that can motivate students to learn. Assessment tools should not only be used for assessment or evaluation of students’ achievement, but also for enhancing the quality of language learning and teaching. To enhance learning and teaching quality, assessment tools are expected to help encourage learners to learn actively and critically, not simply studying for an exam. Taking this issues into account, traditional types of assessment such as pencil-and-paper tests alone might not be able to stimulate students’ motivation to learn, or to truly assess their language ability during their learning process. In addition, some teachers might encounter a situation in which students can do well in pencil-and-paper tests on grammar and sentence structure, but make mistakes when actually using the language in oral interaction or writing work (NCLRC, 2004). Teachers

62 rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 need to ensure that their choice of assessment can accurately demonstrate reflections of authentic language use. Hence, alternative types of assessment come into play with the purpose of filling up a space where traditional types of assessment leave it empty. Alternative types of assessment such as journals, logs, portfolios, self-assessment, and peer-assessment help reveal what students can do with language. Most of them are considered performance-based types of assessment. The general features of alternative assessment include requiring students to perform, create, and produce something (Herman, Aschbacher and Winters, 1992), using real-world contexts or simulations, focusing on processes as well as products (Aschbacher, 1991), and providing information about both the strengths and the weaknesses of students (Huerta-Macias, 1995). It is important that teachers make appropriate choices among the various assessment options in order to facilitate students’ learning and to make an accurate judgment on the extent to which students have achieved their learning objectives. In this study an English grammar course was chosen for an experimental classroom. The first reason is that most types of assessment in a grammar course are mainly pencil-and-paper types because they are widely accepted in terms of their objectivity. These kinds of tests are used for summative assessment and are taken by students at the end of a unit or a course. However, the researcher was interested in the possibility of incorporating alternative assessments into an English grammar course. Also, grammar learning is considered an indispensible aspect of a learner’s path toward mastering the language; however, there is a mistaken belief that the more grammatical features students remember, the better they can master the language. From the new perspective on English used as a lingua franca in the 21st century there is a question as to whether knowledge of discrete grammatical points can really represent students’ grammatical ability. Accordingly, alternative types of assessment should be integrated into English courses in conjunction with traditional types of assessment in order to assess students’ grammatical ability. Finally, grammatical ability is not just the extent of students’ grammatical knowledge, because as Rothstein and Rothstein state, “the job of language teachers is to think of how we can make grammar fun to learn and memorable and meaningful” (as cited in Tutunis, 2012). Therefore a set of alternative assessment methods should be implemented to motivate students to be more involved in their learning. The purpose of this study was to investigate students’ and teachers’ perceptions towards both traditional and alternative types of assessment as used in an English course named Introduction of English Grammar and Structure, which was a compulsory course for first-year-Englishmajoring students at a university in Bangkok, Thailand. The traditional assessments used in this study were pencil-and-paper quizzes and exams, including multiple-choice questions, cloze passages, error detection, and sentence completion. The alternative assessments include iPortfolio (individual work), WeCreate Activity (pair assignment), and iLearn & Teach Project (group work). All of these alternative tools focus on encouraging students to change what they know about grammatical structure to what they can do with this grammatical knowledge. In addition, these types of assessment were expected to yield a positive washback by helping students enhance their learning process and motivating them to learn and apply their grammatical knowledge to real-world communication.

rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 63 LITERATURE REVIEW Traditional and alternative assessments There might not be a very clear cut explanation as to which assessments are traditional or alternative. Actually, both can serve different purposes of assessment. However, there are some features that can be used to identify traditional assessment tools. First, a traditional assessment tool is likely to be considered a standardized test with decontextualized test items. Second, the focus is on discrete answers. Third, it tends to be a summative test which is oriented towards the product. Finally, it evaluates non-interactive performance, so it fosters extrinsic motivation (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010, p. 18). Examples of traditional assessment types are true-false, matching, and multiple-choice formats. Alternative assessment can be continuous long-term assessment with contextualized communicative tasks. In addition, it encourages open-ended, creative answers. It is considered a formative assessment which is oriented towards the process. Finally, it involves inter-active performance, so it fosters intrinsic motivation. Alternative types of assessment can present new ways of motivating and inspiring students to learn as well as evaluating students’ language ability on a basis of authenticity in their use of language. Reeves (2000, as cited in Nasab, 2015) proposed two approaches in alternative assessments which are performance assessment and portfolio assessment. These categories are similar to the types of assessment mentioned by Brown & Hudson, 1998. The two important features of performance assessments are performance and authenticity. The concept of authenticity encourages students to carry out tasks based on what they have actually encountered in their daily lives and that is one reason why alternative assessment produces meaningful classroom activities. Brown & Hudson (1998) summarize twelve characteristics of alternative assessments as follows: 1. Require students to perform, create, produce, or do something; 2. Use real-world contexts or stimulations; 3. Are nonintrusive in that they extend the day-to-day classroom activities; 4. Allow students to be assessed on what they normally do in class every day; 5. Use tasks that represent meaningful instructional activities; 6. Focus on processes as well as products; 7. Tap into higher level thinking and problem-solving skills. 8. Provide information about both the strengths and weaknesses of students; 9. Are multi-culturally sensitive when properly administered; 10. Ensure that people, not machines, do the scoring, using human judgment; 11. Encourage open disclosure of standards and rating criteria; and 12. Call upon teachers to perform new instructional and assessment roles. (pp. 654-655)

64 rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 Related research concerning traditional and alternative assessment tools Teachers have been trying to find better ways to assess their students’ English language ability with a belief that traditional assessment alone cannot fully assess what should be assessed. Alternative types of assessment are therefore more widely implemented in English language teaching and learning to serve this purpose. Consequently, a number of studies need to be conducted in order to investigate the effectiveness of the alternative assessment tools when they are used to replace traditional tools or are used as additional tools to the traditional ones. Some examples of alternative assessment tools are portfolio, self-assessment, peer assessment, project-based assessment, and classroom presentation. The portfolio has been widely used as an alternative assessment and many studies have investigated its effect on students’ language ability and perceptions. Most results of the studies showed positive effect of the use of portfolio. Tabataabaei and Assefi (2012) investigated the effect of portfolio assessment technique as a teaching, learning and assessment tool on students’ writing performance. They had an experiment group of 20 students using portfolio assessment and a control group of 20 students using the traditional approach of writing assignments. The result showed students in their experimental group outperformed those in the control group in their writing performance. Demirel and Duman (2015) have also discovered the same result that portfolio can improve students’ language ability. In an experimental group, they used a portfolio as an additional part to existing activities of the teacher handbook and in control group there is no use of a portfolio. Then a questionnaire concerning students’ attitudes towards English was used. Although the results showed that the use of portfolio had no effect on students’ attitudes towards English, it had positive effect on students’ achievement concerning grammar and vocabulary. In addition students in their studies showed positive attitudes towards portfolio activities in the interview. Even in an online English course, the use of portfolio has also influenced students’ learning process. Baturay, (n.d.) investigated online English language learners’ perceptions of portfolio assessment and discovered that learners had positive feelings towards portfolio use in the course because it helped them to see how they were using the target language. Furthermore, it helped them reflect on what they learned, promote their responsibility of their learning, and enhance the motivation towards the online English course. The pair work like WeCreate Activity in this study and the group work like iLearn & Teach Project have been also implemented and investigated whether they had any effect on students’ language performance or students’ perceptions towards learning English. These assessment tools have been increasingly implemented in English language classroom. Storch (1999) used a pair work to investigate the effects of student negotiations over grammatical choices in order to complete grammar-focused exercises. The results of the comparison of exercises completed individually with those completed in pairs suggested that collaboration had a positive effect on overall grammatical accuracy. Working in group can be an assessment tool as it requires students to be more engaged not only intellectually but emotionally as well. A number of studies focused on teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards the use of alternative assessment. One of the studies was conducted by Nasri et al (2010). A questionnaire

rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 65 was used to collect the data concerning teachers’ perceptions on alternative assessment tools and the results showed that teachers had positive perceptions on alternative assessment. However, they voiced that alternative assessment had significant impact on the increase in paperwork and demands of their time. Forutan (2014) conducted a study to evaluate students’ performance and also survey their attitudes regarding assessment procedures which consisted of the teacher and peer comments and feedback for their writing performance. The results demonstrated that in this alternative assessment there was students’ improvement in terms of content, organization and style in comparison to traditional assessment and students also expressed positive attitudes towards teacher and peer comments. Washback Messick (1996) defines washback as ‘the extent to which the introduction and use of a test influences language teachers and learners to do things they would not otherwise do that promote or inhibit language learning’ (p.241). Some educational scholars link washback effects and a test’s validity. If a test has validity, it should provide positive washback. However, others pay more attention to the elimination of irrelevant representation of a test than to the extent to which a test can provide positive or negative washback. Some scholars mention this test effect using the term “backwash” to refer to the fact that testing can affect not only the curriculum, but also teaching methods and students’ approaches to learning. Washback can be recognized as either positive or negative and positive washback is said to result when a testing procedure encourages ‘good’ teaching practice (Taylor, 2005). Due to the differences in their features, alternative and traditional assessments produce different consequent washback. Traditional types of assessment, especially multiple-choice questions, have been criticized for limitations in testing language ability, hence the construct validity of the tests. Alternative types of assessment, despite being praised for their representations of authentic features, have also been criticized on the inevitable inclusion of irrelevant content and the doubt whether they are really simulation of real-world processes. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research questions This study aimed to investigate students’ and teachers’ perceptions toward traditional and alternative types of assessment used in an English course offered to English-majoring students named Introduction to English Grammar and Structure. The research questions were: 1. What are students’ and teacers’ perceptions on traditional and alternative types of assessment used in the Introduction to English Grammar and Structure course? 2. What are the similarities and differences between students’ and teachers’ perceptions on traditional and alternative types of assessment used in the Introduction to English Grammar and Structure course?

66 rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 Research context The participants in this study were 103 first-year students majoring in English and five teachers in a university in Bangkok, Thailand. Students took the course Introduction to English Grammar and Structure as a compulsory course of 45 hours. It is the first English course of the curriculum. Its course objectives mainly focus on brushing up students’ grammatical knowledge and encouraging students to demonstrate their grammatical ability by putting their knowledge into practice. Course assessment tools The original course had two traditional assessment tools: quizzes and exams (Midterm exam and Final exam). The adjusted assessment system for this study was incorporated with three newly-designed tools of alternative types (iPortfolio, WeCreate Activity, and iLearn & Teach Project) so there were five assessment tools in all. The details of each assessment tool used in this research are described as follows: 1. Quizzes can be considered one of the formative assessments which aim to inform teachers and students of what progress students have made during their learning process. In this course, there were two quizzes. One was given before the midterm examination and the other before the final examination. They included various types of question items such as multiple-choice questions, error detection, gap filling with appropriate forms of words, and sentence completion with students’ own words. 2. Exams were parts of the summative assessments which aim to inform teachers of how much knowledge students have acquired and to what extent they have gained from course in relation to the course’s learning objectives. In this course, there were two exams: the Midterm exam and the Final exam. The types of question items are similar to those in the quizzes such as multiple-choice questions, error detection, gap filling with appropriate forms of words, and sentence completion with students’ own words. In addition to those questions which are similar to the quizzes, there are cloze passages which can be considered as alternative types in the Midterm and Final exams. 3. iPortfolio, an individual project, aimed to promote students’ self-directed process and their ability in relating grammar lessons to reading and writing skills. In this course, each student had to collect at least ten assignments through the whole semester. As a matter of fact, this project might be considered as a combination of portfolio and journal. Students completed three tasks. First, they wrote a summary and a reflection of what they had learned in class on a weekly basis. Second, they collected assignments they had done which were related to using grammatical knowledge to analyze authentic materials, such as an analysis of grammatical features and language use in newspaper or magazine articles, product labels, or notices or warning signs. Finally, they wrote sentences or short texts to demonstrate their understanding of the grammatical structures learnt from the class. The criteria were based on the completion, quality, and creativity of the assignments.

rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 67 4. WeCreate Activity, a pair-work activity, aimed to encourage students to put their knowledge into practice and make grammar lessons useful and fun. It was expected the pair-work activity would encourage students to apply grammatical rules to produce useful materials for the learning and teaching of English. In this course students had their own choice to make of any kind of work concerning the grammatical points studied in class. Examples of their work are an analysis of interesting topics, a short film, a drama play, a video presentation, and a poster, etc. Then students presented their project in the classroom to demonstrate how their work was useful for other students in learning English grammar. Their final piece of work would be placed in the Self-Access Learning Center of the Humanities Faculty and available for other students to use. The criteria were based on their creativity as well as the accuracy of their work. 5. iLearn & Teach Project, a group-work project, was based on the notion of Roman philosopher, Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC- AD 65), “While we teach, we learn” (as cited in Paul, 2011). In thisproject, students collaborated with one another in a group of 4-6 students and demonstrated how they understood the assigned topics by teaching other classmates. In their teaching sessions, students presented an overview of the topic, created class activities, produced task sheets or exercises, and used PowerPoint in their class instruction. They had to ensure that their classmates understood the topics taught. Each group had about 60-90 minutes depending on their lesson plan. Their performance was graded based on the degree of their understanding of the topics, the grammatical ability demonstrated to convey meanings, the organization of their lesson planning and team working skills. Each group of students had to present twice in this course: the first time as a practice and the second time as part of the course assessment. Research instruments The questionnaires were used to obtain information about students’ (Appendix 1) and teachers’ perceptions (Appendix 2). According to Dornyei (2003), questionnaires are suitable for obtaining the factual, behavioral, and attitudinal types of data about the respondent. In addition, the questionnaire is considered one of the useful instruments for providing structured and objective data which is straightforward to analyze (Cohen et al., 2007). The opinion questionnaires were used to investigate students’ and teachers’ perceptions toward the different types of assessments used in this study. RESULTS Research Question # 1 is to investigate students’ and teachers’ perceptions on traditional and alternative types of assessment used in the Introduction to English Grammar and Structure course. The perceptions towards overall features are presented in Table 1, their effectiveness in Table 2 and the possible use in other subjects in Tables 3 and 4.

68 rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 Table 1 Features of assessments tools with the highest mean score 62 Research Question # 1 is to investigate students’ and teachers’ perceptions on traditional and alternative types of assessment used in the Introduction to English Grammar and Structure course. The perceptions towards overall features are presented in Table 1, their effectiveness in Table 2 and the possible use in other subjects in Tables 3 and 4. Table 1 Features of assessments tools with the highest mean score Students Teachers iPortfolio Mean SD Mean SD * iPortfolio promotes learner autonomy 3.99 .70 - - * IPortfolio facilitates practice and revision. - - 3.80 1.09 WeCreate Activity * WeCreate encourages students to perform, create, and produce something related to what they have learnt. 4.07 .98 3.80 1.64 iLearn & Teach Project * iLearn & Teach promotes students’ thinking and problem-solving skills. 3.70 .88 3.80 1.30 * iLearn & Teach motivates students to learn. - - 3.80 1.30 Quizzes * Quizzes inform students and teachers of what students have learnt and what aspects need improvement. 4.23 .80 3.60 1.51 * Quizzes offer students opportunities to assess their learning progress. - - 3.60 1.51 Exams Exams indicate how well students have accomplished the course objectives. 4.19 .89 3.60 1.51 From Table 1, the students believed that iPortfolio performs its best function for promoting learner autonomy (3.99) while the teachers believed that it is best for facilitating practice and the revision process (3.80). As for WeCreate Activity, it obtained the highest acceptance for encouraging students to perform, create, and produce something from both students (4.07) and teachers (3.80). iLearn & Teach Project was considered a good tool for promoting students’ thinking and problem-solving skills by the students (3.70) and by the teachers (3.80). In addition, the teachers thought that iLearn& Teach Project was also best in motivating students to learn (3.80). As for traditional assessment tools, Quizzes were considered best for informing students and teachers of what the students had learnt and what aspects needed improvement for both students (4.23) and teachers (3.60). Teachers also thought that quizzes best offer students opportunities to assess their learning progress (3.60). Exams were best used for indicating how well students had accomplished the course objectives in students’ opinion (4.19) and teachers’ opinion (3.60).

rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 69 Table 2 Effectiveness of assessment tools for different purposes From Table 2, the effectiveness of each assessment tool is considered for the five purposes. For (1) To assess students’ grammatical knowledge, exams are ranked the best from both the students’ and teachers’ points of view. For (2) To assess students’ grammatical ability, exams are best in the students’ opinions while teachers think that every tool except iPortfolio can assess grammatical ability. For (3) To produce positive washback, both students and teachers think that quizzes and exams are the most effective tools. In addition, teachers also believe that iLearn & teach project can produce positive washback. For (4) To provide reliable scores that can tell how well students have achieved the course objectives and (5) To be used as an effective tool for a grammar course, Exams are ranked the most effective assessment tool. In conclusion, Exams are an assessment tool which were rated the highest for all the purposes of assessment. This part aimed to investigate the participants’ perceptions toward the possibilities of each assessment tool for use in other English courses. The participants were asked to identify the level of effectiveness of each type of assessment tool, for example, if it can be used in reading, writing, listening/speaking, translation, or an ESP course. The courses, which obtain 3.50 and above (a rangeof ‘moderately effective’ to ‘most effective’), are shown in Tables 3-4. Table 3 Students’ perceptions of possibilities of use for other English courses rEFLections Volume 25[1] January – June 2018 __________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 3 Students’ perceptions of possibilities of use for other English courses Types of assessment Reading Writing Listening/ Speaking Translation ESP course Quizzes 4.06 3.94 - 3.55 - Exams 4.28 4.22 - 3.83 - iPortfolio 3.57 3.93 - 3.50 - WeCreate Activity - - - - - iLearn & Teach Project 3.54 - 3.84 - - Note: 3.50 and above (a range of ‘moderately effective’ to ‘most effective’), From Table 3, the participants were asked to identify the level of effectiveness of each type of assessment tool, for example, if it can be used in reading, writing, listening/speaking, translation, or anESPcourseTable3showstheoneswhichobtain350andabove(arangeof‘moderately Purpose iportfolio WeCreate Activity iLearn& teach Quizzes Exams STs STs STs STs STs STs STs STs STs STs 1. To assess students’ grammatical knowledge 5. To be used as an effective assessment tool for a grammar course. 4. To offer a reliable score that can tell how well students have achieved the course objectives 2. To assess students’ grammatical ability 3. To produce positive washback 3.55 3.55 3.49 3.47 3.62 3.00 3.34 2.80 3.58 3.60 4.08 4.60 2.80 3.20 3.00 3.46 3.00 4.04 4.20 3.80 3.37 3.50 3.50 4.00 3.88 4.00 3.60 3.30 3.80 3.62 3.80 4.13 3.80 3.20 3.24 3.00 3.59 3.40 4.14 4.00 4.25 4.17 3.88 4.11 4.10 4.40 4.20 3.80 4.00 4.20 Note: STs = students, Ts = teachers

70 rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 64 iPortfolio 3.57 3.93 - 3.50 - WeCreate Activity - - - - - iLearn & Teach Project 3.54 - 3.84 - - Note: 3.50 and above (a range of ‘moderately effective’ to ‘most effective’), From Table 3, the participants were asked to identify the level of effectiveness of each type of assessment tool, for example, if it can be used in reading, writing, listening/speaking, translation, or an ESP course. Table 3 shows the ones which obtain 3.50 and above (a range of ‘moderately effective’ to ‘most effective’). Traditional types of quizzes and exams are well accepted in English courses such as reading, writing, and translation. Likewise, they also think that the iPortfolio can also be used for those three courses. iLearn & Teach Project might be used for reading and listening/speaking courses while WeCreate Activity is not recommended for any course. Table 4 Teachers’ perceptions on possibilities of use for other English courses Types of assessment Reading Writing Listening/ Speaking Translation ESP course Quizzes 4.20 4.00 3.60 4.00 4.20 Exams 4.00 3.80 - 4.00 4.00 iPortfolio - 4.00 - - 3.60 WeCreate Activity - - - - 3.60 iLearn & Teach Project - - - - - Note: 3.50 and above (a range of ‘moderately effective’ to ‘most effective’), From Table 4, the results of teachers’ perceptions from Table 4 show that traditional types of quizzes and exams are recommended for every kind of English course. The iPortfolio can be used for writing and ESP courses. WeCreate Activity is recommended only for an ESP course while iLearn &Teach Project was not recommended for any course in the teachers’ opinions. Research question # 2 is to compare the perceptions of students and teachers on the four main issues: their preferences of assessment tools, the level of difficulty, the effectiveness, and the reliability of the assessment tools. The data was collected from the questionnaire part which consisted of 10 questions. The participants had to choose only one tool they thought best responded to the questions posed and made overall comments for each tool. Table 5 shows how similar and different their perceptions towards each assessment tool are and Tables 6-7 presented their justification. From Table 3, the participants were asked to identify the level of effectiveness of each type of assessment tool, for example, if it can be used in reading, writing, listening/ speaking, translation, or an ESP course. Table 3 shows the ones which obtain 3.50 and above (a range of ‘moderately effective’ to ‘most effective’). Traditional types of quizzes and exams are well accepted in English courses such as reading, writing, and translation. Likewise, they also think that the iPortfolio can also be used for those three courses. iLearn & Teach Project might be used for reading and listening/speaking courses while WeCreate Activity is not recommended for any course. Table 4 Teachers’ perceptions on possibilities of use for other English courses From Table 4, the results of teachers’ perceptions from Table 4 show that traditional types of quizzes and exams are recommended for every kind of English course. The iPortfolio can be used for writing and ESP courses. WeCreate Activity is recommended only for an ESP course while iLearn & Teach Project was not recommended for any course in the teachers’ opinions. Research question # 2 is to compare the perceptions of students and teachers on the four main issues: their preferences of assessment tools, the level of difficulty, the effectiveness, and the reliability of the assessment tools. The data was collected from the questionnaire part which consisted of 10 questions. The participants had to choose only one tool they thought best responded to the questions posed and made overall comments for each tool. Table 5 shows how similar and different their perceptions towards each assessment tool are and Tables 6-7 presented their justification.

rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 71 Table 5 Comparison of all assessment tools 65 rEFLections Volume 25[1] January – June 2018 __________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 5 Comparison of all assessment tools The assessment tool that… Students Teachers 1. students and teachers like most of all WeCreate (29.1%) Quizzes (40%) 2. students and teachers dislike most of all Exams/ iLearn & Teach (31.1%) iPortfolio 40%) 3…is the most difficult form of assessment Exams (69.9%) Exams/ iLearn& Teach (40%) 4….is the easiest form of assessment iPortfolio 38.3%) WeCreate (40%) 5….most effectively assesses grammatical knowledge Exams (43.7%) Exams (80%) 6….least effectively assesses grammatical knowledge WeCreate (63.1%) Wecreate/ iPortfolio (40%) 7….most effectively assesses students’ grammatical ability Exams (38.8%) iPortfolio (40%) 8…. least effectively assesses students’ grammatical ability WeCreate (46.6%) - 9…is the most reliable tool Exams (48.5%) WeCreate (60%) 10...is the least reliable tool WeCreate (43.7%) WeCreate/ Quizzes (40%) From Table 5, the results show that, for both teachers and students, traditional types of assessment are more acceptable than alternative types. Students and teachers share the same viewpoint in that Exams is the tool considered the most difficult form (#3) and the most effective tool to assess grammatical knowledge (#5). They also agree upon the idea that WeCreate Activity was the lease effective tool to assess grammatical knowledge (# 6). Table 6 Comments on traditional assessment tools Tools Students Teachers Quizzes and Exams Positive: - They cover all the topics I have learned. - It gives us a grade that clearly represents our level of knowledge. - It can really assess my understanding of the grammar lessons. Negative: - They are more difficult than the exercises in the course book. - Exams are difficult and scare me. Positive: - It can assess individual students’ knowledge - It is best to assess for individual ability and fairness - It is the most reliable tool. Negative: - In some parts it tests existing knowledge rather than knowledge obtained from the course Table 7 Comments on alternative assessment tools Tools Students Teachers iPortfolio Positive: - I have opportunities to revise lessons and summarize them. - I can write the stories about myself. Positive: - It’s useful for their daily life. - It’s free production/ self-reinforcement. - It helps support students’ autonomy. 65 rEFLections Volume 25[1] January – June 2018 __________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 5 Comparison of all assessment tools The assessment tool that… Students Teachers 1. students and teachers like most of all WeCreate (29.1%) Quizzes (40%) 2. students and teachers dislike most of all Exams/ iLearn & Teach (31.1%) iPortfolio 40%) 3…is the most difficult form of assessment Exams (69.9%) Exams/ iLearn& Teach (40%) 4….is the easiest form of assessment iPortfolio 38.3%) WeCreate (40%) 5….most effectively assesses grammatical knowledge Exams (43.7%) Exams (80%) 6….least effectively assesses grammatical knowledge WeCreate (63.1%) Wecreate/ iPortfolio (40%) 7….most effectively assesses students’ grammatical ability Exams (38.8%) iPortfolio (40%) 8…. least effectively assesses students’ grammatical ability WeCreate (46.6%) - 9…is the most reliable tool Exams (48.5%) WeCreate (60%) 10...is the least reliable tool WeCreate (43.7%) WeCreate/ Quizzes (40%) From Table 5, the results show that, for both teachers and students, traditional types of assessment are more acceptable than alternative types. Students and teachers share the same viewpoint in that Exams is the tool considered the most difficult form (#3) and the most effective tool to assess grammatical knowledge (#5). They also agree upon the idea that WeCreate Activity was the lease effective tool to assess grammatical knowledge (# 6). Table 6 Comments on traditional assessment tools Tools Students Teachers Quizzes and Exams Positive: - They cover all the topics I have learned. - It gives us a grade that clearly represents our level of knowledge. - It can really assess my understanding of the grammar lessons. Negative: - They are more difficult than the exercises in the course book. - Exams are difficult and scare me. Positive: - It can assess individual students’ knowledge - It is best to assess for individual ability and fairness - It is the most reliable tool. Negative: - In some parts it tests existing knowledge rather than knowledge obtained from the course Table 7 Comments on alternative assessment tools Tools Students Teachers iPortfolio Positive: - I have opportunities to revise lessons and summarize them. - I can write the stories about myself. Positive: - It’s useful for their daily life. - It’s free production/ self-reinforcement. - It helps support students’ autonomy. From Table 5, the results show that, for both teachers and students, traditional types of assessment are more acceptable than alternative types. Students and teachers share the same viewpoint in that Exams is the tool considered the most difficult form (#3) and the most effective tool to assess grammatical knowledge (#5). They also agree upon the idea that WeCreate Activity was the lease effective tool to assess grammatical knowledge (# 6). Table 6 Comments on traditional assessment tools Table 7 Comments on alternative assessment tools 1. students and teachers like most of all The assessment tool that… WeCreate (29.1%) (40%) (40%) (40%) (40%) (40%) (40%) (40%) (60%) (80%) (31.1%) (69.9%) (38.3%) (63.1%) (43.7%) (38.8%) (46.6%) (48.5%) (43.7%) Quizzes WeCreate WeCreate Students Teachers Exams/ iLearn & Teach Exams/ iLearn & Teach Wecreate/ iPortfolio Wecreate/ Quizzes Exams Exams iPortfolio iPortfolio iPortfolio - Exams Exams WeCreate Exams WeCreate WeCreate 4….is the easiest form of assessment 9…is the most reliable tool 2. students and teachers dislike most of all 5….most effectively assesses grammatical knowledge 6….least effectively assesses grammatical knowledge 7….most effectively assesses students’ grammatical ability 8…. least effectively assesses students’ grammatical ability 10...is the least reliable tool 3…is the most difficult form of assessment

72 rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This study aimed to investigate the perceptions of students and teachers toward traditional assessments (pencil-and-paper quizzes and exams) and alternative assessments (iPortfolio, WeCreate Activity, and iLearn & Teach Project) especially designed for the English course, Introduction to English Grammar and Structure. The original course included only the two traditional assessment tools and the objective of the integration of the three alternative ones in this study was to try new ways of assessing students’ language ability in an English grammar course and to intentionally create positive washback including active learning, learner-centered features, and self-autonomous learning in an English language classroom. The questionnaires were used to answer the research questions concerning the teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards these two types of assessment and a comparison of students’ and teachers’ perceptions. The results show that both groups of participants, students and teachers, showed greater preference for traditional types of pencil-and-paper quizzes and exams. In addition, they stated that these assessment tools were more valid and reliable, especially when compared to alternative tools including WeCreate Activity and iLearn & Teach Project. One of the reasons to explain this incident might be the fact that grammatical points are the main 66 rEFLections Volume 25[1] January – June 2018 __________________________________________________________________________________________ Negative: - It’s just a collection of my work. - Students cannot create their own Portfolio. Negative: - They copied rather than summarized lessons of their own. - It was time-consuming. WeCreate Activity Positive: - It encourages students to use Grammatical knowledge to create ideas and produce useful learning tools. - I can do anything that I like and work with a friend. - it’s not boring, a lot of fun and there’s no pressure. Negative: - The focus is on creativity and presentation skills rather than assessment of grammatical knowledge. Positive: - Students can use all important skills. Negative: - it’s difficult to assess (no exact criteria) - Students don’t demonstrate their grammatical knowledge, just their creativity - Requires only some part of students’ knowledge so cannot asses holistic ability iLearn & Teach Project Positive: - Positive: - It encourages self-study best - Students must prepare thoroughly to teach classmates well - It is a way to transfer knowledge rather than to apply knowledge Negative - Students teach wrong concepts DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This study aimed to investigate the perceptions of students and teachers toward traditional assessments (pencil-and-paper quizzes and exams) and alternative assessments (iPortfolio, WeCreate Activity, and iLearn & Teach Project) especially designed for the English course, Introduction to English Grammar and Structure. The original course included only the two traditional assessment tools and the objective of the integration of the three alternative ones in this study was to try new ways of assessing students’ language ability in an English grammar course and to intentionally create positive washback including active learning, learner-centered features, and self-autonomous learning in an English language classroom. The questionnaires were used to answer the research questions concerning the teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards these two types of assessment and a comparison of students’ and teachers’ perceptions. The results show that both groups of participants, students and teachers, showed greater preference for traditional types of pencil-and-paper quizzes and exams. In addition, they stated that these assessment tools were more valid and reliable, especially when compared to alternative tools including WeCreate Activity and iLearn & Teach Project. One of the reasons to explain this incident might be the fact that grammatical points are the main contents of the course in this study and they have long been generally believed to be appropriately tested with a more objective type of assessment. Furthermore, the ideas of testing the amount of discrete grammatical points might still greatly influence the assessment system in a grammatical course. Hence traditional assessment

rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 73 contents of the course in this study and they have long been generally believed to be appropriately tested with a more objective type of assessment. Furthermore, the ideas of testing the amount of discrete grammatical points might still greatly influence the assessment system in a grammatical course. Hence traditional assessment tools are more preferred due to their high reliability and validity. Nevertheless, if the focus had been placed on students’ grammatical ability which Purpura (2004) defined as “an individual’s capacity to utilize metal representation of language knowledge built up through practice or experience in order to form meaning” (as cited in Jones, 2012) rather than just students’ grammatical knowledge of discrete points, alternative types of assessment might have been more accepted in this study. Another reason that traditional tools were more preferred than alternative ones in this study might be the fact that when the assessments have involved a high stake decision like assigning students grades, they are expected to be as objective as possible in teachers’ opinion. Teachers seemed to prefer traditional types which could help them assess students’ language ability objectively. The subjectivity of some alternative assessment tools could not offer them a precise decision in differentiating good students from weaker students. Accordingly, traditional types are better options in this circumstance. The other interesting point was the fact that when it comes to alternative assessment tools students seem to have higher degree of preferences and agreement than those of teachers. A surprising finding was that teachers were the one who implemented the alternative assessment tools; however, they seemed to express their lower trust in these tools. It would be recommended to find out whether the teacher would accept alternative assessment toolsif these tools were designed and practiced in a less subjective way. This finding would be more challenging aspects for further studies. Portfolio, despite being widely accepted as one of the effective assessment tools such as in the research studies such as those conducted by Tabataabaei and Assefi (2012) and Demirel and Duman (2015), was not that well accepted in this study. iPortfolio was considered less effective in this study than pencil-and-paper quizzes and exams. However, students rated it as the second most liked tool and stated that it was a useful method for their learning process, to review their lessons, and prepare themselves for the exams throughout the semester. This might be confirmed by the notion noted by Aurbach (2005) that a portfolio is as much a process as a product. WeCreate Activity was a pair-work activity aiming to encourage students to put knowledge into practice and to provide students with grammar lessons which were useful and fun to learn. It was also originally designed to create a positive washback. Although some students stated that they liked the objectives of the project which allowed them to apply their grammatical knowledge and to create self-access learning materials, they did not think that it was a valid tool to assess their grammatical knowledge. Teachers also voiced their concerns about validity by stating that it assessed students’ creativity rather than their grammatical ability. This problem can be illustrated by what Messick (1996) mentioned, namely, the important things is to design tests or select assessment tools to reduce construct underrepresentation, not just to create a positive washback effect of assessment. WeCreate Activity might not be appropriate for use in a grammar course; however, they might

74 rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 bemore suitable for other English skill courses, such as listening and speaking courses which require students to demonstrate their language skills and proficiency in the forms of speaking or giving a presentation. In addition, a task-based project like WeCreate, if carefully designed and tailor-made, can be a useful tool for in the students’ learning process and it might be a valid tool when it is related to the learning objectives of course. iLearn & Teach Project was a group-work project where students prepared a grammar lesson in advance and taught their classmates. Some students and the teachers stated that they disliked this assessment type. The reason might be that this assessment tool required more of students’ teaching and presentation skills which they thought were not related to grammatical ability. As for the teachers, although they thought this project was a good tool to foster the self-study process, they did not encourage using this learning by teaching strategies in any English course. The reason for not supporting this project might involve teachers’ disbelief in students’ ability to teach and to transfer knowledge to other classmates. Therefore teachers did not trust in students’ talking time and thought that students would not learn much by teaching their classmates. Likewise their classmates would not learn anything from them, so it was considered a waste of class time. This perception definitely goes against the view presented by Vygotsky’ Social Developmental Theory which emphasizes that “the one who does the talking does the learning” (as cited in Tyrer, 2013). Although the teachers seemed not to like iLearn & Teach project, some students stated that they felt excited to demonstrate what they had studied to their classmates and they gained a lot more understanding while preparing a lesson. As a researcher and teacher, I totally agree with this approach as I have experienced this myself by gradually gaining more knowledge while preparing lessons, teaching and dealing with students’ questions. I also believe in lessening teacher talking time and increasing students talking time in the classroom. Accordingly in the iLearn & Teach project, the teacher’s role as an authoritative figure would be changed while the students’ passive roles becomes active and more efficient. In conclusion, the results concerning alternative assessments might not have yielded many positive effects in this study, but it is worth attempting to develop and improve them so that there might be more optional ways than quizzes and exams for the assessment of students’ grammatical ability. In addition teachers could start using alternative assessments which might involve the low stake decision so that they would feel more stressful in the assessment process and they might feel more familiar with the tools and gain more trust in implementing them further. Most importantly, if these alternative assessments were to be implemented in other English skill courses, the construct validity as well as reliability should be taken into account and the focus should not only be on creating positive washback, which is a concern raised by Messick (1996). Finally, alternative assessments should not be considered as a replacement of traditional assessments or vice versa, but they should be in line with the recommendation of Coombe et al. (2012): Alternative assessment should not be used as an alternative to traditional language assessment, but it should be used in conjunction with it. It should also be held to the same standards in terms of validity and reliability as traditional types of testing. (p.153)

rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 75 Accordingly, a combination of traditional and alternative types of assessment would be the most effective method for teachers who wish to balance their teaching and assessment as well as to create a learning atmosphere which will enhance students’ learning in class. Most importantly teachers are obligatory to select any assessment tool with careful consideration to ensure the appropriateness of each assessment tool for the learning objectives. THE AUTHOR Marissa Phongsirikul is a lecturer of English at the Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart University (Bangkhen Campus). She got her BA in English from Chulalongkorn University and her MA in Applied Linguistics from Mahidol Univesity. Her research interests are intercultural competence development and alternative assessment in ELT. REFERENCES Aschbacher, P. (1991). Performance assessment: State activity, interest, and concerns. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 275-288. Aurbach, E., (2005), About Portfolios. Retrieved from http://www.aurbach.com/files/About_ Portfolios.pdf Baturay, M.H. (n.d.). Online English language learners’ perceptions of portfolio assessment. Teaching English with Technology, 15(4), 16-18. Retrieved from http://www. tewtjournal.org Brown, H. D. & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment, principles and classroom practices (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. Brown, J. D. & Hudson, T. (1998). The alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4). 653-675. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007) Research methods in education (6th ed.). London, England: Routledge. Coombe, C. et al., (2012), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Demirel, M. & Duman, H. (2015). The use of portfolio in English language teaching and its effects on achievement and attitude. Procedia-Social and behavioral sciences 191, 2633-2640. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Forutan, A. (2014). Traditional versus alternative writing assessment. International journal of foreign language teaching & research, 2(7). 10-22. Herman, J.L., Aschbacher, P.R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Huerta-Macias, A. (1995). Alternative assessment: Responses to commonly asked questions. TESOL Journal, 5, 8-11. Jones, W. (2012). Assessing student’s grammatical ability. In C. Coombe, P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan, & S. Stoynoff (Eds), The Cambridge guide to second language assessment (pp.247-256). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13(3), 241-256. Nasab, F. G. (2015). Alternative versus traditional assessment. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(6), 165-178. Nasri, N. et al. (2010). Teachers’ perception on alternative assessment. Procedia-Social and behavioral sciences 7(C) 37-42. Paul, A.M., (2011), “The Protégé Effect: Why teaching someone else is the best way to learn”. Retrieved from http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/30/the-protégé-effect/ Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

76 rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 Reeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Educational Computing Research, 3(1), 101-111. Rothstein, E. & Rothstein, A. (2009). English grammar instruction that works. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publishing. Storch, N. (1999). Are two heads better than one? Pair work and grammatical accuracy. System, 27(3), 363–374. Tabataabaei, O. & Assefi, F. (2012). The effect of portfolio assessment technique on writing performance of EFL learners. English language teaching, 4(5). 138-147. Retrieved from www.ccsenet.org/elt Taylor, L. (2005). Washback and impact. ELT Journal, 59(2). 154-155. The National Capital Language Resource Center. NCLRC (2004). Assessing learning, alternative assessment. Retrieved from http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/assessing/alternative.htm. Tutunis, B. (2012). Grammar in EFL pedagogy: to be or not to be: Explicit or implicit grammar instruction in EFL. International journal of humanities and social sciences, 2(5), 120-122. Tyrer, G. (2013). One who does the talking does the learning, Retrieved from http://grahamtyrer.com/ 2013/03/29/the-one-who-does-the-talking-does-the-learning/

rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 77 APPENDIX 1 Students’ questionnaire 70 rEFLections Volume 25[1] January – June 2018 __________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX 1 Students’ questionnaire

78 rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 71 rEFLections Volume 25[1] January – June 2018 __________________________________________________________________________________________

rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 79 72 rEFLections Volume 25[1] January – June 2018 __________________________________________________________________________________________

80 rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 73 rEFLections Volume 25[1] January – June 2018 __________________________________________________________________________________________

rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 81 APPENDIX 2 Teachers’ questionnnaire 74 rEFLections Volume 25[1] January – June 2018 __________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX 2 Teachers’ questionnnaire

82 rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 75 rEFLections Volume 25[1] January – June 2018 __________________________________________________________________________________________

rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 83 76 rEFLections Volume 25[1] January – June 2018 __________________________________________________________________________________________

84 rEFLections Vol 25, No.1, January – June 2018 77 rEFLections Volume 25[1] January – June 2018 __________________________________________________________________________________________