Dil testlerinin Türkiye bağlamındaki gücü üzerine eleştirel bir çalışma

Standart testler, eğitim uygulamalarında belli değişimler yaratmakla birlikte pedagojik reformları da beraberlerinde getirebilir. Testlerin bireyler ve toplum üzerinde oluşturduğu güç bu değişim ve etkinin temel kaynakları arasındadır. Farklı bağlamlarda bu testlerin bireyler üzerindeki gücünün ciddi sorunlara sebebiyet verdiği gözlemlenmektedir. Bu nedenle, literatürde bu testlerin ortaya çıkardığı etkileri anlayabilmek adına testlerin kendi bağlamları çerçevesinde eleştirel bir bakış açısıyla değerlendirmesi vurgulanmaktadır. Standart testlerin bireylerin hayatında etkin rol oynadığı ülkelerden birisi olan Türkiye’de son yıllarda uygulanmaya başlanan testlerden birisi Öğretmenlik Alan Bilgisi Testi (ÖABT)’dir. Ölçme, Seçme ve Yerleştirme Merkezi (ÖSYM) tarafından uygulanmakta olan bu sınavın etki ve sonuçları üzerinde yapılan çalışmaların az olduğu söylenebilir. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmada Türkiye bağlamında ÖABT’nin İngilizce öğretmen ataması için kullanılmasının İngilizce öğretmen adayları ve İngilizce öğretmenliği bölüm hocalarının üzerinde oluşturduğu etkileri belirlemek amaçlanmıştır.

The power of language tests in Turkish context: A critical study

High-stakes tests are often introduced to bring about change on educational practices and thus lead to pedagogicalreform. The Field Knowledge Test (FKT) for teacher candidates of English in Turkey is an example of such anattempt. This study aims to giving voice to English language teacher educators and student teachers to view theFKT critically to investigate if it has brought about the intended changes and its impact on its main stakeholders.The study, first, presents Critical Language Testing (CLT). Then, it gives information on the context of the study.Data collection for the study involved 153 test takers and 23 teacher educators working at ELT Departments inTurkey. Two open-ended questionnaires were used to survey participants’ perceptions of the FKT in terms of itsimpact on the nature of education they receive, their attitudes and feelings and also on their academic and personallives. Analysis of data paved the way for further studies on how high stakes tests might or might not be efficientagents of change in various educational contexts.

PDF

___

Alderson, J. C.,&Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: A study of washback. Language Testing, 13(3), 280-297.
Akpınar, K. D., Çakıldere, B. 2013. Washback effects of high-stakes language tests of Turkey (KPDS and ÜDS) on productive and receptive skills of academic personnel. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 9(2), 81-94. Retrieved fromhttp://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/jlls/article/download/5000084297/5000078394 Andrews, S., Fullilove, J., &Wong, Y. (2002). Targeting washback—a case-study. System, 30(2), 207 223.
Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language testing, 13(3), 257-279.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Bracey, G. W. (1987). Measurement-Driven Instruction: Catchy Phrase, Dangerous Practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(9), 683-86.
Brunfaut, T. (2014). A lifetime of language testing: An interview with J. Charles Alderson. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), 103-119.
Burrows, C. (2004). Washback in classroom-based assessment: A study of the washback effect in the Australian adult migrant English program. In L.Cheng& Y. Watanebe (withA.Curis) (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp.113-128).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cheng, L. (2001). Washback studies: Methodological considerations. In Curriculum Forum (Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 17-32).
Cheng, L.,& Curtis, A. (2004). Washback or backwash: A review of the impact of testing on teaching and learning. In L.Cheng and Y. Watanabe (eds.) with A. Curtis (eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods, (pp.3-17). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, L. (2008). Washback, impact and consequences. In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 2479-2494). Springer US.
Davison, C. (2004). The contradictory culture of teacher-based assessment: ESL teacher assessment practices in Australian and Hong Kong secondary schools. Language Testing, 21(3), 305-334.
Hamp-Lyons, L., Hood, S., & MacLennan, C. (2001). Promoting Quality Teaching in the Tertiary Context. Higher Education Review, 34(1), 60-76.
Hatipoğlu, Ç. (2016). The impact of the University Entrance Exam on EFL education in Turkey: Preservice English language teachers’ perspective. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 136-144.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing English for Language Teachers.
Li, H. (2008). Are teachers teaching to the test? A case study of the College English Test (CET) in China. Poster presented at 30 th Annual Language Testing Research Colloquim, Hong Zhou, China
Luxia, Q. (2005). Stakeholders’ conflicting aims undermine the washback function of a high-stakes test. Language Testing, 22(2), 142-173.
Külekçi, E. 2016. A concise analysis of the Foreign Language Examination (YDS) in Turkey and its possible washback effects. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 3(4), 303-315. Retrieved from http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/141/143
Madaus, G. E. (1998). The influence of testing on the curriculum. Yearbook-National Society For The Study Of Education, 2, 71-112.
McNamara, T. (2005). 21st century shibboleth: Language tests, identity and intergroup conflict. Language Policy, 4(4), 351-370.
McNamara, T., &Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension(Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.
McNmara, T. (2014).Language Testing. Oxford University Press.
Menken, K. (2008). High‐Stakes Tests as de facto Language Education Policies. In Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 2529-2541).Springer US.
Özmen, K. S. (2011a). Analyzing washback effect of SEPPPO on prospective English teachers. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 7(2), 24-52. Retrieved from http://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/112/
Özmen, K. S. (2011b). Washback effects of the inter-university foreign language examination on foreign language competences of candidate academics. Novitas ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 5(2), 215-228. Retrieved from http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_5_2/OzmenKS.pdf
Pearson, I. (1988). Tests as levers for change. In D.Chamberlein& R.J. Baumgardner (Eds.), ESP in the classroom: Practice and evaluation (pp.98-107). London: Modern English.
Rea-Dickins, P., Kiely, R., & Yu, G. (2007). Student Identity, Learning and Progression: with specific reference to the affective and academic impact of IELTS on ‘successful’ candidates. IELTS Impact Studies Vol, 7. (IELTS Joint-funded research programme). IELTS Australia&the British Council.
Sayın, B. A., Aslan, M. M. (2016). The negative effects of undergraduate placement examination of English (LYS-5) on ELT students in Turkey. Participatory Educational Research, 3(1), 30-39.
Shohamy, E. (1993). The Power of Tests: The Impact of Language Tests on Teaching and Learning. NFLC Occasional Papers.
Shohamy, E.,Donitsa-Schmidt, S., &Ferman, I. (1996). Test impact revisited: Washback effect over time. Language testing, 13(3), 298-317
Shohamy, E. (1998). Critical language testing and beyond. Studies in educational evaluation, 24(4), 331-345.
Shohamy, E. (2001a). Democratic assessment as an alternative.Language testing, 18(4), 373-391.
Shohamy, E. (2001b). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Routledge.
Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. Psychology Press.
Shohamy, E. (2007a). The power of language tests, the power of the English language and the role of ELT. In International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 521-531).Springer US.
Shohamy, E. (2007b). Language tests as language policy tools. Assessment in Education, 14(1), 117- 130.
Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 8-11.
Stake, R. E. (1991).Impact of changes in assessment policy. In Stake, R.E., (ed), Advances in program evaluation: using assessment policy to reform education, Volume 1. London: JAI PressInc.
Toksöz, I., & Kılıçkaya, F. (2017). Review of Journal Articles on Washback in Language Testing in Turkey (2010-2017). Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 41(2).
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. palgrave Macmillan.
Wall, D.,&Alderson, J. C. (1993). Examiningwashback: the Sri Lankan impact study. Language testing, 10(1), 41-69.
Yavuzer, H., Göver, Đ. H. (2012).Akademik personelin yabancı dil durumu ve yabancı dil sınavlarına bakışı: Nevşehir örneği [The academics’ language proficiency and their views on foreign language exams: Nevşehir Example]. NEÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(2), 136-158.Retrieved from http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/nevsosbilen/article/download/1043000099/104300 0057
Yıldırım, O. (2010). Washback effects of a high-stakes university entrance exam: Effects of the English section of the university entrance exam on future English language teachers in Turkey. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 12(2), 92-116.
Young, R. F. (2012). Social dimensions of language testing. The Routledge handbook of language testing, 178-193.