PL EN


2017 | 17 | 4 | 78-92
Article title

IMPROVING FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT IN LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS USING GRADECAM GO!

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
This study aimed to determine EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers’ perceptions and experience regarding their use of GradeCam Go! to grade multiple choice tests. The results of the study indicated that the participants overwhelmingly valued GradeCam Go! due to its features such as grading printed forms for multiple-choice questions as well as the immediate feedback provided to both teachers and their students. The results of the study also indicate that GradeCam Go! might be a very useful tool for teachers working in schools with large classrooms where technological resources are rare. GradeCam Go! seems to pave the way for an easy and efficient tool for teachers to use regular assessment through frequent quizzes, give immediate feedback, and monitor student progress.
Keywords
Year
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
78-92
Physical description
Contributors
References
  • Akayoğlu, S. (2017). Pre-service English teachers’ perceptions of computer assisted language learning. Elementary Education Online, 16(3), 1220-1234. Retrieved from http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/ilkonline/article/view/5000205619
  • Beaven, T., Emke, M., Ernest, P., Germain-Rutherford, A., Hampel, R., Hopkins, J., Stanojevic, M. M., & Stickler, U. (2010). Needs and challenges for online language teachers – The ECML project dots. Teaching English with Technology, 10(2), 5-20. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/23330/1/beaven_et_al.pdf
  • Brady, B. (2012). Managing assessment in large EFL classes. In C. Coombe, P. Davidson, B. O’Sullivan, & S. Stoynoff (Eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Assessment (pp. 291-298). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education.
  • Brown, J. D. (2013). Research on computers in language testing: Past, present and future. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary Computer-Assisted Language Learning (pp. 73-94). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.
  • Brown, J. D. (2016). Language testing and technology. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp. 141-159). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Chappuis, S., & Chappuis, J. (2010). The best value in formative assessment. In S. C. Williamson (Ed.), Annual Editions: Assessment and Evaluation 10/11 (pp. 67-69). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Fageeh, A. I. (2015). EFL student and faculty perceptions of and attitudes towards online testing in the medium of Blackboard: Promises and challenges. The JALT CALL Journal, 11(1), 41-62. Retrieved from http://journal.jaltcall.org/articles/11_1_Fageeh.pdf
  • Fulcher, G., & Owen, N. (2016). Dealing with the demands of language testing and assessment. In G. Hall (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 109-120). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Gordon, E. W., & Rajagopalan, K. (2016). The Testing and Learning Revolution: The Future of Assessment in Education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Hamp-Lyons, L. (2016). Purposes of assessment. In D. Tsagari & J. Banerjee (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Assessment (pp. 13-27). Boston/Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.
  • Johnson, G. M. (2006). Optional online quizzes: College student use and relationship to achievement. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 32(1). Retrieved from https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26481/19663
  • Johnston, C. (2003). The use of online assessment in stimulating a deeper approach to learning. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning and Teaching with Technology: Principles and Practices (pp. 206-2016). London: Kogan Page.
  • Kessler, G., & Hubbard, P. (2017). Language teacher education and technology. In C. A. Chapelle & S. Sauro (Eds.), The Handbook of Technology and Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 278-292). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
  • Kılıçkaya, F. (2017). The effects of pre-lecture online quizzes on language students’ perceived preparation and
  • academic performance. PASAA Journal, 53(1), 59-84. Retrieved from http://www.culi.chula.ac.th/publicationsonline/files/article/V5J7jUbWldThu23557.pdf
  • Kılıçkaya, F. (2016, December). GradeCam GO!: Grading multiple-choice tests instantly. The AATSEEL Newsletter, 59(4), 8-10. Retrieved from http://www.aatseel.org/100111/pdf/december_2016_aatseel_nl_final.pdf
  • Kılıçkaya, F. (2010, December). Creating language quizzes: QuizStar. The AATSEEL Newsletter, 53(4), 5–6. Retrieved from http://www.aatseel.org/100111/pdf/aatseeldec10nlfinal.pdf
  • Krajka, J. (2003). On the web- making web-based quizzes in an instant. Teaching English with Technology, 3(1), 51-56. Retrieved from http://tewtjournal.org/issues/past-issue-2003/past-issue-2003-issue-1/
  • Lee, K. L., & Norbaizura, M. N. (2016). Assessment for Learning: Students’ perception on peer review in a private university. In S. F. Tang, & L. Logonnatkan (Eds.), Assessment for Learning within and beyond the Classroom: Taylor’s 6th Teaching and Learning Conference 2015 Proceedings (pp. 199-210). Singapore: Springer Nature.
  • Mumm, K., Karm, M., & Remmik, M. (2016). Assessment for learning: Why assessment does not always support student teachers’ learning. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(6), 780-803. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2015.1062847
  • Pennebaker, J. W., Gosling, S. D., & Ferrell, J. D. (2013). Daily online testing in large classes: Boosting college performance while reducing achievement gaps. PLoS ONE, 8(11), 1-6. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079774
  • Powell, J. C. (2010). Testing as feedback to inform teaching: Using response spectrum evaluation (RSE) on all answers. In J. M. Spector, D. Ifenthaler, P. Isaias, Kinshuk, D. Sampson (Eds.), Learning and Instruction in the Digital Age (pp. 25-50). New York, NY: Springer.
  • Rakıcıoğlu-Söylemez, A., & Akayoğlu, S. (2015). Prospective EFL teachers’ perceptions of using CALL in the classroom. In K. Dikilitaş (Ed.), Innovative Professional Development Methods and Strategies for STEM Education (pp. 195-208). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
  • Richards, J. C. (2015). Key Issues in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Webb, S. (2016). Teaching vocabulary in the EFL context. In W. A. Renandya & H. P. Widodo (Eds.), English Language Teaching Today: Linking Theory and Practice (pp. 227-239). Bern: Springer.
  • Skorczynska, H., Del Saz Milagros, R., & Carrio-Pastor, M. L. (2016). Second language teaching and technology: An overview. In M. L. Carrio-Pastor (Ed.), Technology Implementation in Second Language Teaching and Translation Studies: New Tools, New Approaches (pp. 13-32). Singapore: Springer.
  • Sprague, A. (2016). Improving the ESL graduate writing classroom using Socrative: (Re)Considering exit ticket. TESOL Journal, 7(4), 989-998. doi:10.1002/tesj.295
  • Walker, A., & White, G. (2013). Technology Enhanced Language Learning: Connecting Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • William, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-4570e54f-63e3-4705-a933-31cb80efbd0e
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.