Teacher Interpretation of Test Scores and Feedback to Students in EFL Classrooms: A Comparison of Two Rating Methods

Mu-Hsuan Chou

doi:10.5539/hes.v3n2p86

Abstract

Rating scales have been used as a major assessment instrument to measure language performance on oral tasks. The present research concerned, under the same rating criteria, how far teachers interpreted students’ speaking scores by using two different types of rating method, and how far students could benefit from the feedback of the description of the two rating methods. Fifteen English teachers and 300 college students in Taiwan participated in the study. Under the same rating criteria, the two types of rating method, one with the level descriptors and the other with a checklist, were used by the teachers to assess an English speaking test. It was discovered that the rating method had a noticeable impact on how teachers judged students’ performance and interpreted their scores. The majority of the students considered feedback from the verbally more detailed method more helpful for improving language ability.

Highlights

Performance rating scales have long been used to provide information regarding test candidates’ performance abilities in speaking or writing
The present study examines Taiwanese university teachers’ perceptions of using two different rating methods to interpret their students’ oral scores in role-play and simulation tasks in an English course
The oral test took the form of a role-play and simulation task, where paired participants performed tasks in a simulated context relevant to the content-based topics taught in class

Summary

Introduction

Performance rating scales have long been used to provide information regarding test candidates’ performance abilities in speaking or writing. According to my teaching experience in Taiwan, many university teachers have regarded using rating scales with detailed descriptors in speaking tests as a waste of time They often turned to holistic scoring, where they gave students single scores based on their overall speaking performance, but later they discovered it was hard to interpret students’ scores after marking and to know how far the students had achieved the teaching and learning objectives. This resulted in problems with verbalizing students’ performance based on their scores and offering informative feedback to students, the teachers themselves, and other relevant stakeholders. It is hoped that the results of the present study can provide teachers and educational researchers with guidance on whether to employ either rating method in the context of classroom assessment and feedback to students

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion