ПОВРАТНИТЕ ИНФОРМАЦИИ КАКО ОСНОВА ЗА СОЦИЈАЛНА ПРАВДА ПРИ ЈАЗИЧНОТО ТЕСТИРАЊЕ
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Објавено:
Jun 20, 2020
##plugins.pubIds.doi.readerDisplayName##:
https://doi.org/10.37834/JCP2030021d
Клучни зборови:
јазични тестови, англискиот како наставен јазик, повратни информации, социјална правда, сертификација на универзитетски професори
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Апстракт
Интернационализацијата на високото образование доведе до пораст на бројот на предмети од различни научни области што се предаваат на англиски јазик и тоа на универзитетите во земјите каде што англискиот не се говори како мајчин јазик. Со воведувањето на ваквите предмети се зголеми и бројот на мерки (тестови, сертификати) што универзитетите ги преземаат за да ја одредат способноста на професорите да предаваат на англиски јазик, иако англискиот не им е мајчин. Но, дали резултатите од тестирањето се ефикасни и дали предизвикуваат социјална нерамнотежа на универзитетот како работно место, ретко претставува предмет на научните истражувања. Врз основа на принципот дека тестовите за познавање на англискиот јазик треба да претставуваат средства за помош, а не ексклу зија, на професорите што имаат потреба од поддршка (Davies 2010), т.е. оние што имаат лимитирани способности во употребата на англискиот јазик, важно е да се стави акцент на повратните информации што професорите ги добиваат врз основа на тестот. Во статијава се презентираат резултатите од истражување со мешана (квантитативна и квалитативна) методологија, чија цел беше анализа на ефикасноста на повратните информации од тестот по говорен англиски јазик за сертификација на универзитетски професори што предаваат на англиски јазик. Собраните податоци вклучуваат извештаи со повратни информации и анкетни податоци. Резултатите упатуваат на тоа дека, ако се контекстуализирани повратните информации, тие се ефикасни, бидејќи им овозможуваат на тестираните професори да се запознаат со стрaтегиите потребни за успешна комуникација во училницата
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Како да цитирате
Димова, Слободанка. 2020. “ПОВРАТНИТЕ ИНФОРМАЦИИ КАКО ОСНОВА ЗА СОЦИЈАЛНА ПРАВДА ПРИ ЈАЗИЧНОТО ТЕСТИРАЊЕ”. Journal of Contemporary Philology 3 (1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.37834/JCP2030021d.
Рубрика
Лингвистика
Copyright © 2014 Blaže Koneski Faculty of Philology, Skopje
Journal of Contemporary Philology (JCP)
Современа филологија
Референци
Airey, J. (2012). I don’t teach language. The linguistic attitudes of physics lecturers in Sweden. AILA Review, 25: 64–79.
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R. and VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 29(6): 773–799.
Bachman, L.F. and Palmer, A.S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ball, P. and Lindsay, D. (2013). Language demands and support for English-medium instruction in tertiary education. Learning from a specific context. In A.Doiz, J. M. Sierra and D. Lasagabaster (eds.). English-medium instruction at universities:Global challenges, 44–64. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Blattès, M. (2018). Policy development for English-medium instruction in French universities. European Journal of Language Policy, 10 (1): 13–37.
Davies, A. (2010). Test fairness: A response. Language Testing, 27 (2): 171–176.
Dempsey, J.V., Driscoll, M.P. and Swindell, L.K. (1993). Text-based feedback. In J.V.
Dempsey and G.C.Sales (eds.). Interactive instruction and feedback, 21–54, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Deygers, B. (2019). Fairness and Social Justice in English Language Assessment. Second Handbook of English Language Teaching, 541–569.
Dimova, S. (2020). Language Assessment of EMI Content Teachers: What Norms. In M.Kuteeva, K.Kaufhold and N.Hynninen (eds.). Language perceptions and practices in multilingual universities. 351–378. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dimova, S. (2017). Life after oral English certification: The consequences of the Test of Oral English Proficiency for Academic Staff for EMI lecturers. English for Specific Purposes,46: 45–58.
Dimova, S. and Kling, J. (2018). Assessing English‐medium instruction lecturer language proficiency across disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3): 634–656.
Dimova, S. and Kling, J. (2015). Lecturers’ English proficiency and university language polices for quality assurance. In R.Wilkinson and M.L.Walsh (eds.). Integrating content and language in higher education: From theory to practice. Selected papers from the 2013 ICLHE Conference, 50–65. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1): 81–112.
Jensen, C. and Thøgersen, J. (2011). Danish University lecturers’ attitudes towards English as the medium of instruction. Ibérica, 22:13-33.
Kling, J. (2013). Teacher identity in English-medium instruction: Teacher cognitions from a Danish tertiary education context (PhD dissertation). Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen.
Kling, J., and Dimova, S. (2015). The Test of Oral English for Academic Staff (TOEPAS): Validation of standards and scoring procedures. In A.Knapp and K.Aguado (eds.). Fremdsprachen in Studium und Lehre—Chancen und Herausforderungen für den Wissenserwerb, 247– 268. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Kling, J. and Hjulmand, L.-L. (2008). PLATE–Project in language assessment for teaching in English. In R.Wilkinson and V.Zegars (eds.). Realizing content and language integration in higher education, 191–200. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.
Kling, J. and Stæhr, L.S. (2011). Assessment and assistance: Developing university lecturers’ skills through certification feedback. In R.Cancino, L.Dam and K. Jæger (eds.). Policies, principles, practices:New directions in foreign language education in the era of educational globalization, 213–245. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Kulhavy, R.W. and Anderson, R.C. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, (63): 505.
Mason, B.J. and Bruning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction What the research tells us. CLASS Research Report No. 9. Center for Instructional Innovation. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
McNamara, T. and Ryan, K. (2011). Fairness versus justice in language testing: the place of English literacy in the Australian citizenship test. Language Assessment Quarterly, (8): 161–178.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In: R.L.Linn (ed.). Educational measurement (3rd edn.), 13–103. Washington, DC:American Council on Education/Macmillan.
Narciss, S. and Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In H.Niegemann, R.Brünken and D.Leutner (eds.). Instructional design for multimedia learning, 181–195. Münster: Waxmann.
Phillipson, R. (2015). English as threat or opportunity in European higher education. In S. Dimova, A.K.Hultgren and C.Jensen (eds.). English-medium instruction in higher education in Europe, 19–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Phye, G. and Sanders, C.E. (1994). Advice and feedback: Elements of practice for problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, (19): 286–301.
Pulcini, V. and Campagna,S. (2015). Controversy in Italian higher education. English- medium instruction in European higher education. In S.Dimova, A.K.Hultgren and C. Jensen (eds.). English-medium instruction in higher education in Europe, 65–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Santulli, F. (2015). English in Italian universities: The language policy of PoliMi from theory to practice. In S.Dimova, A.K.Hultgren and C. Jensen (eds.). English-medium instruction in higher education in Europe, 269–290. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shute, V.J. (2008). Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1): 153–189.
Surber, J.R. and Anderson, R.C. (1975). Delay-retention effect in natural classroom settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, (67): 170.
Underwood, J. (2008). Effective Feedback: Guidelines for Improving Performance. In G. Kanselaar, V. Jonker, P.A. Kirschner and F. J. Prins (eds.). International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences:Creating a learning world. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences – ICLS 2008, 415–422. Utrecht: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Wilkinson, R. and Zegers, V. (2006). Assessing incipient linguistic competences: An institutional perspective. In R. Wilkinson and V. Zegers (eds.). Bridging the assessment gap in English-medium higher education, 61–76. Bochum: AKS-Verlag.
University of Copenhagen (2007). Destination 2012: Strategy for the University of Copenhagen [Online]. Available from: http://www.e-pages.dk/ku/236/ [Accessed: May 9th, 2020]
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R. and VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 29(6): 773–799.
Bachman, L.F. and Palmer, A.S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ball, P. and Lindsay, D. (2013). Language demands and support for English-medium instruction in tertiary education. Learning from a specific context. In A.Doiz, J. M. Sierra and D. Lasagabaster (eds.). English-medium instruction at universities:Global challenges, 44–64. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Blattès, M. (2018). Policy development for English-medium instruction in French universities. European Journal of Language Policy, 10 (1): 13–37.
Davies, A. (2010). Test fairness: A response. Language Testing, 27 (2): 171–176.
Dempsey, J.V., Driscoll, M.P. and Swindell, L.K. (1993). Text-based feedback. In J.V.
Dempsey and G.C.Sales (eds.). Interactive instruction and feedback, 21–54, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Deygers, B. (2019). Fairness and Social Justice in English Language Assessment. Second Handbook of English Language Teaching, 541–569.
Dimova, S. (2020). Language Assessment of EMI Content Teachers: What Norms. In M.Kuteeva, K.Kaufhold and N.Hynninen (eds.). Language perceptions and practices in multilingual universities. 351–378. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dimova, S. (2017). Life after oral English certification: The consequences of the Test of Oral English Proficiency for Academic Staff for EMI lecturers. English for Specific Purposes,46: 45–58.
Dimova, S. and Kling, J. (2018). Assessing English‐medium instruction lecturer language proficiency across disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3): 634–656.
Dimova, S. and Kling, J. (2015). Lecturers’ English proficiency and university language polices for quality assurance. In R.Wilkinson and M.L.Walsh (eds.). Integrating content and language in higher education: From theory to practice. Selected papers from the 2013 ICLHE Conference, 50–65. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1): 81–112.
Jensen, C. and Thøgersen, J. (2011). Danish University lecturers’ attitudes towards English as the medium of instruction. Ibérica, 22:13-33.
Kling, J. (2013). Teacher identity in English-medium instruction: Teacher cognitions from a Danish tertiary education context (PhD dissertation). Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen.
Kling, J., and Dimova, S. (2015). The Test of Oral English for Academic Staff (TOEPAS): Validation of standards and scoring procedures. In A.Knapp and K.Aguado (eds.). Fremdsprachen in Studium und Lehre—Chancen und Herausforderungen für den Wissenserwerb, 247– 268. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Kling, J. and Hjulmand, L.-L. (2008). PLATE–Project in language assessment for teaching in English. In R.Wilkinson and V.Zegars (eds.). Realizing content and language integration in higher education, 191–200. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht.
Kling, J. and Stæhr, L.S. (2011). Assessment and assistance: Developing university lecturers’ skills through certification feedback. In R.Cancino, L.Dam and K. Jæger (eds.). Policies, principles, practices:New directions in foreign language education in the era of educational globalization, 213–245. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Kulhavy, R.W. and Anderson, R.C. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, (63): 505.
Mason, B.J. and Bruning, R. (2001). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction What the research tells us. CLASS Research Report No. 9. Center for Instructional Innovation. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
McNamara, T. and Ryan, K. (2011). Fairness versus justice in language testing: the place of English literacy in the Australian citizenship test. Language Assessment Quarterly, (8): 161–178.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In: R.L.Linn (ed.). Educational measurement (3rd edn.), 13–103. Washington, DC:American Council on Education/Macmillan.
Narciss, S. and Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In H.Niegemann, R.Brünken and D.Leutner (eds.). Instructional design for multimedia learning, 181–195. Münster: Waxmann.
Phillipson, R. (2015). English as threat or opportunity in European higher education. In S. Dimova, A.K.Hultgren and C.Jensen (eds.). English-medium instruction in higher education in Europe, 19–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Phye, G. and Sanders, C.E. (1994). Advice and feedback: Elements of practice for problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, (19): 286–301.
Pulcini, V. and Campagna,S. (2015). Controversy in Italian higher education. English- medium instruction in European higher education. In S.Dimova, A.K.Hultgren and C. Jensen (eds.). English-medium instruction in higher education in Europe, 65–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Santulli, F. (2015). English in Italian universities: The language policy of PoliMi from theory to practice. In S.Dimova, A.K.Hultgren and C. Jensen (eds.). English-medium instruction in higher education in Europe, 269–290. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Shute, V.J. (2008). Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1): 153–189.
Surber, J.R. and Anderson, R.C. (1975). Delay-retention effect in natural classroom settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, (67): 170.
Underwood, J. (2008). Effective Feedback: Guidelines for Improving Performance. In G. Kanselaar, V. Jonker, P.A. Kirschner and F. J. Prins (eds.). International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences:Creating a learning world. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences – ICLS 2008, 415–422. Utrecht: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Wilkinson, R. and Zegers, V. (2006). Assessing incipient linguistic competences: An institutional perspective. In R. Wilkinson and V. Zegers (eds.). Bridging the assessment gap in English-medium higher education, 61–76. Bochum: AKS-Verlag.
University of Copenhagen (2007). Destination 2012: Strategy for the University of Copenhagen [Online]. Available from: http://www.e-pages.dk/ku/236/ [Accessed: May 9th, 2020]