Conference Agenda

In a linguistically and culturally diversified Europe, the teaching, learning and assessment of foreign languages have gained attention over the last decades (European Commission, EACEA, & Eurydice, 2015). As a result, national tests in languages are currently administered in almost all European countries, and in a majority they carry high-stakes for students. The teaching and assessment of English as a foreign/second language (L2) has a particular position in Europe, where all but one of the countries administer national tests in L2 English for secondary students (European Commission et al., 2015). However, not even half of these countries include all four skills (reading, listening, writing and speaking) in national tests, and speaking is the least assessed language competence (European Commission et al., 2015). A plausible reason is the fact that speaking is the most difficult skill to assess in a reliable way (Alderson & Bachman, 2004), partly because raters need to consider numerous aspects simultaneously, and therefore, raters may pay attention to different aspects of speakers’ utterances (Bøhn, 2015). Moreover, the social situation in which a test is set affects assessment (Borger, 2019), making standardized testing of speaking particularly challenging. There is a gap in research regarding how raters of national and/or standardized tests orient to the challenges of assessing speaking when operationalizing assessment, something that could provide insight into raters’ assessment processes and in turn, how these can inform development of speaking tests.

In Sweden, which constitutes the empirical case for the present study, all students in grades 6 and 9 (12-13 and 15-16 years of age) take a national test in L2 English where students’ listening, reading, writing, and speaking skills are assessed. It is administered by the Swedish National Agency for Education but assessed by students’ own teachers. Speaking is included in part A, the National English Speaking Test (NEST). There is no specific rater training for teachers involved as raters of the NEST, but they are provided with extensive assessment guidelines from the Agency of Education. Despite these guidelines, teachers commonly construct their own note-taking document to use as a scoring template when assessing the NEST (Byman Frisén et al., 2021). Although scoring templates are recognized as mediators between the observed performances and the score awarded (McNamara, 1996), few studies have examined the role(s) they play in the assessment process. The aim of this study is to contribute to a clearer understanding of raters’ scoring processes when assessing L2 English speaking, as these emerge from raters’ reports of their note-taking practices in the assessment situation. Research questions adress how teachers take notes in the assessment situation, in what way they draw upon their notes when deciding the score, and reasons behind the creation and use of an own note-taking document.

The theoretical framework for the study is the Anthropological Theory of Didactics (ATD, Chevallard, 2007), and the idea of praxeologies that according to the theory need to be taken into account to examine ‘true’ knowledge (Chevallard, 2007, p. 133). Praxeologies consist of praxis and logos. Praxis is a type of task as well as the technique used to carry out the task, whereas logos is the logic behind using that particular technique for that particular task (the technology of the technique) as well as theory justifying the technology. Viewing note-taking documents as the technique used to carry out the task of assessing speaking in L2 English, the ATD framework is used in this study to analyze how teachers use this technique as well as analyzing the logos behind it – i.e., the discourse of why and how note-taking is beneficial for carrying out the task.

Schools in Kazakhstan witnessed the most profound changes to the national curriculum and in terms of assessment in order to meet international standards. As the deep educational reforms are implements in the classroom, a phased transition of classes from the grading system to criteria-based assessment was initiated for primary classes in the 2015-2016 academic year (MoES Strategic Plan for 2016; Fifth report, 2016). The assessment reformation was needed because, in the past, teachers evaluated students' knowledge using a 1 to 5-rated scale throughout compulsory schooling (OECD,2014). However, these grades did not provide a clear picture of the students’ true academic performance.

This shifting process began in the NIS (Nazarbayev Intellectual schools). The reason for this, according to ‘The State Programme of the Education Development in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2011-2020’ (MoES, 2010), was that the main tasks of NIS were to act as a platform for the introduction of new policies and the transfer teachers’ experience to mainstream schools. Thus, the criteria-based assessment was experienced between 2011-2016 in NIS (National Academy of Education. I. Altynsarina, 2015). From 2015, 30 pilot schools started implementing a new curriculum and criteria-based assessment, while OECD countries experienced this stage in 1980-90 (Irsaliyev et al., 2017). It was only eight years since implementation of criteria-based assessment. As a researcher I am interested to get teachers views on implementation of criteria-based assessment.

There are many purposes of FA in the classroom and the learning process in general. Students frequently have misconceptions about what are they learning, and also about the why they are learning something (White & Frederiksen, 1998). FA is its provision of quality feedback for learners, which allows the current level of students to be assessed and adequate instruction which outlines the next steps to be taken (Black et al., 2003). Thus, a main objective of FA is to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses and to inform students of their current level based on evidence, and then directing them as to how their learning needs can be met (ARG, 2002). In addition, Roskos and Neuman (2012) noted that FA helps teachers to be more conscious of the gaps in every students’ development. Teachers using FA are better able to meet the learning needs of their students, give constructive feedback, support independent learning, organize interactive assessments of students' attainments, adjust the teaching process, and find students’ weaknesses and strengths (OECD, 2014; Black &William, 1998). Hence, this positive interaction with students may only be achieved when the teacher believes in the advantages of FA. Thus, it is crucial to gain information about what do teachers think about FA. There is a gap in the literature about teachers’ perceptions of FA in Kazakhstan; I was only able to find a minimal amount of research in this context. Therefore, this study focusses on the teacher’s experience, perception, attitudes, and beliefs about FA. This study's first purpose is to gain a deeper understanding of the main opportunities and obstacles to implementing FA according to teachers' realities, whilst the second is to get teachers’ suggestions regarding the integration of FA.

Based on the purposes mentioned in the research scope and research value, two research questions have been generated to guide this study:

1) What do primary school teachers perceive as the opportunities and obstacles to using FA to support learning in their classrooms?

2) What recommendations would teachers give to improve support the use of formative FA in primary schools in Kazakhstan?

This qualitative research interviewed six primary school teachers from a Kazakhstani public school, and the data will be analysed through thematic analysis.