ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT IN ENGLISH

An alternative assessment of oral fluency through classroom

observation in the context of a Greek State Junior High school

INSTRUCTOR: E. KATAROPOULOU

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction.....................................................................................3

The teaching situation ................................................................................................3

Rationale for the implementation of alternative assessment methodology.................4

Description of the alternative assessment procedure.................................................6

Evaluation of the alternative assessment ........................................................9

Conclusion .........................................12

Endnotes ........................................13

References ..................................15

Appendices ..............................22

2
I. Introduction

It can be argued that within the Greek educational context, formal foreign language
assessment resembles a bureaucratic exercise of grade allocation (Papaefthymiou
Lytra, 2012, p. 22), which fails to take into account learner-centred, formative evaluation
processes, currently developed in conjunction with the implementation of communicatively-
oriented curricula. It appears that high school teachers of English as a foreign language in
Greece are expected to teach according to an interaction-based syllabus, but at the same
time assess learners by means of structurally-focused, second-generation tests, whose
design conforms to outdated guidelines, issued by the Ministry of Education more than
thirty years ago1. Interestingly enough, though EFL teachers seem to acknowledge the
significance of alternative assessment procedures (Vlanti, 2012), which focus on the
process of learning and are, thus, more congruent with their classroom practices (Tsagari
& West, 2004), there are few reports of practical implementation of such methods in actual
classroom settings.
Therefore, the present study aims to address this perceived gap between
theoretical curricular guidelines and the practice of EFL testing in secondary education, by
describing and analysing the effects of an alternative assessment of the speaking skill,
carried out in a Greek state Junior High-school. In particular, it will be demonstrated that
the use of classroom observation procedures, has, despite its shortcomings, enhanced
learners' communicative ability, boosted classroom dynamics and motivation and
considerably improved the learning process as a whole.

II. The teaching situation

The study under discussion involves a group of 25 second grade students, who are
mostly monolingual, using Greek as their first language and whose ability in English
ranges from beginner, waystage (A2) level to vantage upper-intermediate (B1) level of
competence, according to the Common European Framework (CEFR). The observation
was conducted in the context of secondary education at Junior High school level, where
the Think Teen series of course books, prescribed by the National Ministry of Education is
implemented. The syllabus followed is based on the principles of the CEFR and appears to

3
promote skills integration and the development of communicative ability in English.
Nonetheless, the specific tasks it involves quite often fail to provide learners with
opportunities for real-world, creative language use. In addition, though teachers are
encouraged by the course book designers to follow a process approach to learning that
enhances learner autonomy and the development of learning strategies, in practice, a
significant number of the proposed tasks are predominantly form-focused and product-
oriented (Kataropoulou, 2014b).
The speaking skill, in particular, appears to be neglected in the syllabus design, in
the teaching and testing practises followed, as well as in related educational research
projects2. These shortcomings have been confirmed by the teacher in question and by the
learners themselves, who identified oral production ability as their top-ranking problem
area in a needs analysis questionnaire they answered prior to the implementation of the
alternative assessment. What is more, the learners prioritised oral communicative fluency
in the reasons they gave for learning English and ranked speaking tasks high in their
preferred classroom activities (appendix I). It was therefore decided that this specific
language area should be dealt with more systematically in the teaching and alternative
assessment practices which will be subsequently analysed.

III. Rationale for the implementation of alternative assessment

methodology

Taking the above described contextual parameters into account, the teacher in
question resorted to classroom-based assessment procedures, so as to combine
assessment, teaching and learning (Colby-Kelly & Turner, 2009). In this sense, alternative
assessment methods were perceived as the most suitable means by which students' oral
performance could be not only evaluated, but also improved (Abbas, 2012). Adopting an
assessment for learning approach3, a process-oriented evaluation was introduced as a
way to encourage higher order thinking skills and a deep, rather than a surface approach
to learning (Puhl, 1997). Apart from its educational benefits, alternative assessment
practices were considered as particularly effective for broadening the syllabus so as to
include more communicatively-oriented tasks and for enhancing learners' intrinsic
motivation and positive feelings of self-efficacy and confidence (Tsagari & West, 2004).
Additionally, non-traditional assessment was introduced as an essentially context-sensitive

4
procedure with the potential to yield analysable data and assist the teacher in making
important decisions regarding her teaching practices (Leung, 2004; Turner, 2012).
The methodology selected for the alternative assessment involved classroom
observation, focusing on learners' oral ability. It is generally agreed upon that systematic,
well-organised observation procedures are better suited to assess actual performance of
productive skills, as opposed to factual knowledge of performance (Airasian, 2005).
Furthermore, they are associated with more holistic evaluation schemes targeted
towards broader areas of knowledge and they have the potential to give prominence to
elements of the teaching and learning process that remain unnoticed and underutilised in
traditional assessment methods (Smith, 2000; Chirimbu, 2013). With respect to the
speaking skill, in particular, learner observation can significantly assist teachers and
learners to evaluate both the linguistic level of oral output, as well as the non-linguistic,
social and communication strategies used (Genesse & Upshur, 1996).
In order to ensure consistency and reliability of the observation procedure,
triangulation, or the collection of data from a variety of sources (Pashaliori & Milesi, 2005),
was pursued, by means of different techniques. Hence, peer and self-observation were
used in conjunction with the teacher's own observation of the oral production sessions, so
that more accurate judgements about learners' competencies could be made.
In general, teacher observation records constitute a valuable insider's perspective 4
on learner performance and, as such, are considered an essential element of alternative
assessment practices. Consequently, the teacher's insights into students' strengths and
weaknesses were systematised in the study under discussion, with the aim to
simultaneously inform learner assessment and the overall instructional process.
Meanwhile, peer observation was implemented for evaluating oral competence, on
both practical and educational grounds. It was, hence, decided to involve learners in the
observation process, in order to assist the teacher who cannot, obviously, observe
everyone in a single lesson and to encourage students to take responsibility towards their
own and their peers learning, by activating higher-order reasoning processes (Cheng &
Warren, 2005; Saito, 2008). In this sense, the Vygotskian view of learning as embedded in
social interaction (1986) was taken into account in the peer-observation scheme
employed, which emphasised the significance of learning through the assistance of more
competent peers performing relevant tasks 5. It was therefore anticipated that learners
would benefit from attentively listening to their fellow-students' talk and that they would

5
perform better knowing that they are observed not only by their teacher, but also by
interested classmates. Additionally, assessment through peer-observation was seen as a
motivating process that enhances learners' positive feelings about learning and about
themselves and their classmates, while also reducing their anxiety (Rubin, Bukowski, &
Parker, 1998).
Finally, self-assessment was implemented as a third source of evaluation data, with
the aim to enable learners to consciously reflect on their own and their peers' oral
competence and to view learning in more self-relevant terms, rather than as meeting
demands yielded by the teacher alone (Harris, 1997). In this respect, self-assessment was
primarily employed as an awareness-raising technique, encouraging learners to realise
where their strengths and weaknesses lie in relation to performing specific oral tasks and
to actively seek out ways to improve their speaking ability 6. Moreover, the reflective
potential of the self-assessment process was perceived as a source of valuable
information for the teacher, enabling her to challenge or confirm existing attitudes and
beliefs about her practices (Bullock, 2010).
Overall, then, the underlying assumptions behind the design of the alternative
assessment in question was that no single method can satisfy the contextual parameters
previously described, therefore multiple sources of information, namely teacher-
observation, peer evaluation and self-assessment, were utilised to ensure validity and
reliability of the process, as well as to address students' needs appropriately (Worley,
2001, p.5).

IV. Description of the alternative assessment procedure

The alternative assessment project was initiated following, as has been mentioned,
a needs analysis questionnaire administered by the teacher under discussion to her
learners, so as to locate potential gaps in the teaching and assessment practices that
had to be addressed within the specific teaching context (Long, 2005). The results of the
needs analysis were reported to the students and ways to deal with the issues raised were
discussed. It was subsequently decided that an alternative assessment framework would
cover both their perceived needs for oral fluency development and their dissatisfaction with
the testing practices implemented so far. The learners' views were also taken into account
regarding the methodology followed, so that peer-evaluation, which received the most

6
enthusiastic response compared to other methods, such as recordings and portfolio
assessment, was selected for use in a series of focus-on-speaking lessons (appendix I).
The learners were also informed about the value of self-assessment as a means of
reflection and improvement of their performance (Patri, 2002; Chalkia, 2012) and it was
agreed that the teacher would conduct her own observation, in order to improve reliability
and better coordination of the project.
Apart from taking the learners' opinions and preferences into consideration, another
important factor for the successful introduction of alternative assessment practices is
careful preparation and learner-training (Kohonen, 1997), as well as learner participation in
the design of the instruments implemented 7. Therefore, approximately one teaching hour
was devoted to the discussion about the relevant measuring tools, namely the rating scale
and the checklist used for the peer and self-assessment respectively. The teacher together
with the students agreed on the evaluation criteria for the peer-observation and decided
that these would have to include linguistic accuracy, but also ability to communicate
effectively, as well as willingness to co-operate and contribute to the activities.
At this stage, the teacher explained the unique features of spoken language and
demonstrated samples of real-world spoken interactions exhibiting grammar of speech
characteristics, such as omissions, short turns, pauses, repetitions and simple vocabulary
among others (Luoma, 2005). In addition, learners were reminded of effective
communication strategies, such as asking for clarification, verifying assumptions and self-
correcting (Rubin, 1975; Ellis & Sinclair, 1989). Subsequently, a rating scale was
developed for peer-observation, where student-observers were required to judge the
degree to which a specific oral behaviour was exhibited (Worley, 2001). Since learners
opposed the assigning of a numerical score to the criteria specified, a semi-descriptive
pattern was followed and observers were simply asked to note the frequency of the
observed behaviour, that is if it occurred usually, sometimes, or rarely (appendix II).
During the preparation stage, it was also agreed that the same rating scale would
be used at the end of each peer-observation session, in order to check agreement
between peer and self evaluation. Additionally, a short checklist was prepared so that
learners could reflect on their experiences and learning opportunities as both speakers-
participants and as observers (appendix III). In the following lesson, students were given
the opportunity to practise using these instruments in a preparatory session, where they
were also able to clarify vague points, unknown vocabulary and terminology related to their

7
use. Moreover, since the peer-observation required a different seating arrangement to the
one the learners were used to, the model session helped them to find their places more
easily when the actual assessment began. These preparatory sessions, albeit time-
consuming, were considered critical for the success of the observations that followed,
since they ensured that everyone knew where they were supposed to be and what was
expected of them during the whole process and had, in fact, experienced the procedures
prior to their implementation for assessment purposes.
Having adequately prepared the learners, the first observation session took place in
a relatively stress-free atmosphere and involved the students in a group discussion
(appendix IV). As had been practised in the preparatory stage, half of the learners were
observers and the other half were participants in the activity and they switched roles
halfway into the lesson repeating the task. 8 At the same time, the teacher used the same
rating scale as the students without much difficulty, given that only three groups of learners
were speaking at a time. Towards the end of the lesson all learners completed, signed and
handed their self-assessment forms to the teacher. The same process was repeated in
three subsequent speaking sessions, where learners engaged in role-play, a pyramid
discussion and a mediation task respectively (ibid).
As a result, the teacher was able to accumulate assessment data from three
different sources, over a one-month period and create individual report cards
demonstrating the progress of each student (Lovelock, 2002). These cards did not contain
actual marks, but points assigned to the positive speaking features observed by means of
the previously described rating scales (appendix V). In this way, the progress of individual
learners and of the whole class was carefully monitored, which gave the opportunity to the
teacher to make specific interventions aiming at the improvement of the process.
For instance, having observed that the same two learners consistently appeared
impolite to other members of their group in the first two sessions (appendices VII-IX), the
teacher held private conferences with them and resolved the existing tension. Similarly,
after noticing that almost half of the students did not initially justify their answers
appropriately (ibid), the teacher pointed this out at the next session and provided relevant
examples and in a supplementary worksheet, making sure that learners with the greatest
problems in this area got essential practice (appendix VI). More importantly though, the
individual report cards were given to all students at the end of the alternative assessment
project, as concrete evidence of their progress in a skill for which no previous record of

8
achievement had been provided (appendix V).
At this point, it must also be observed that the tasks used in the assessment
sessions were carefully constructed, so as to fulfill essential communicative criteria and
provide opportunities for authentic, purposeful language use, in line with the demands of
communicative language assessment (Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Fulcher, 2000). In all
four tasks, attempt had been made to provide a clear purpose for the interaction and a
realistic context for the learners' oral output. Group-work was employed as a motivating
and authentic language use environment for students to express themselves more freely
(Salem, 2012) and pair-work was also implemented as means to increase participation of
all students (Hedge, 2000), Furthermore, all the activities involved essential
communicative features, namely specific roles, outcomes, a clear procedure and a
challenging element of split information, which motivated learners to become actively
engaged in interaction (Nation, 1989). The teacher consistently monitored these task-
authenticity criteria, in order to maintain the validity of the procedure.

V. Evaluation of the Alternative Assessment Scheme

The alternative assessment methods under discussion proved to be a considerably

reliable and valid instrument for measuring learners' oral competency in the specific
classroom setting where they were applied. As has been explained, triangulation of data
ensured the reliability of the assessment, since the teacher's observations provided a
reference criterion against which students' ratings were tested (Falchikov & Goldfinch,
2000), while its suitability for the classroom context it was conducted in, invested the
process with consistency and validity.
Likewise, the alternative assessment was implemented on the principles of criterion-
referenced testing where learners are assessed in terms of what they can achieve in
relation to the subject matter in question, in this case effective oral performance. (Fulcher
& Svalberg, 2013). In this respect, the learners' overall improvement during the course of
the alternative assessment (appendices VII-IX) demonstrates its validity as a process-
oriented type of evaluation. Contrary to conventional testing modes, the procedures
analysed illustrate a shift from positivist reliance on exclusively quantitative data to
formative assessment activities, which are classroom-based and aligned to the curriculum
(Davison, 2007; Tsushima, 2015). Clearly, then, the alternative assessment methods

9
described do not conform to the same concept of validity as traditional testing, despite
some researchers' claims that this should be the case (Brown & Hudson, 1998); rather,
they rely on a different definition of validity, as the degree of correlation between
assessment results and appropriate and useful implications for teaching and learning. 9
In this sense, the context-dependent validity of the alternative assessment
methodology appears to be closely related to its utility function and to its positive wash-
back effect. In the case under discussion, the implemented procedures had high utility,
since they provided information about individual strengths and weaknesses in various
aspects of learners' oral competences (West, 2004), such as accuracy, fluency and
strategic competence (appendix VII). As far as their wash-back potential is concerned it is
evident that positive teaching practices were encouraged by their implementation (Taylor,
2005). In contrast to traditional summative tests focusing primarily on linguistic accuracy
and language usage, the alternative assessment emphasised oral fluency, which was
neglected in the syllabus, and provided opportunities for language use. The tasks used in
the observation sessions served as both assessment and learning tools and the learners'
gradual improvement in performing those tasks attests to the effective application of their
acquired knowledge and skills in real-world domains (Finch, 2007). Consequently, the
alternative methods employed are expected to have a strong wash-forward effect, given
also that the learners in question perceive themselves as potential fluent users of English
in a variety of real-life communicative situations (appendix I).
The whole process, therefore, was clearly effective in empowering its participants,
by enabling them to observe and evaluate the learning process and, according to
experiential learning theory, transform this experience into knowledge (Kolb, et al., 2001).
The self-assessment process in particular, enhanced meta-cognitive awareness and,
contrary to conventional tests, gave prominence to the learners, rather than the final score
(Burke, 2015), since it engaged them in critically thinking about their roles as participants
and as observers of interaction in English. As a result, learner autonomy and motivation
increased, while they undoubtedly assumed control and responsibility over their oral
performance progress (Tan, 2007; Crooks, 2007). This enhanced feeling of self-efficacy
can be expected to affect positively other areas of their competence in English, as well as
other subjects (Davison, 2007).
In addition, the assessment procedures were used by the teacher as a means to
support reflection and growth in a community of learners (Newfields, 2006), rather than as

10
a tool to control this community (Shohamy, 2001). The whole process was reflected a
culture of success, assuming that all learners can achieve a certain degree of effective
communication in English (Black & William, 2001); consequently their errors were used as
springboards for improvement and not penalised. Even the observed use of L1 was
legitimised and transformed into an asset, by means of a mediation activity highlighting the
significance of plurilingualism in the final observation session 10. In fact, throughout the
process, learners were respected and trusted to conduct peer-observation and self-
assessment reliably (Todd, 2002). Hence, their noteworthy progress demonstrates both
that this trust was justified and that success-oriented assessment can be a particularly
effective learning tool.
Nevertheless, the procedures described were not without their difficulties and
shortcomings. Relinquishing a considerable amount of control to the learners required the
teacher in question to assume an unconventional role by Greek educational standards,
which was at times uncomfortable, even stressful. Furthermore, significant preparation
was necessary in terms of training and materials preparation, thus lowering the practicality
of the assessment compared to that of a conventional speaking test, such as a short oral
interview. Similarly, the large amount of data collected during the procedure demanded
considerable time to be processed and evaluated. Time constraints admittedly prevented
more analytic statistical processing of the results, which would provide a more accurate
picture of the correlation between peer and self-assessment findings. Additionally,
although the teacher under discussion did not meet with opposition from interested
stakeholders, such as parents, school advisors, or administrators, this remains a likely
possibility in future implementations.
It should also be noted that, since classroom-based alternative assessment relies
heavily on the intuitive nature of teacher decision making (Rea-Dickins, 2006, p. 164), its
success is not generalisable; what worked well with a specific group of learners may well
prove ineffective in a subsequent application, unless careful and time-consuming
restructuring takes place. Finally, the peer and self-assessment scheme implemented
involved a risk element in that it depended primarily on learners' intuitions, which could be
affected by a certain amount of bias related to gender, L1 background, or even friendly
relationships between observers and participants 11.
Evidently, then, the alternative assessment possible shortcomings need to be taken
into consideration, since, as Baker argues, there is no point in rhapsodising on the

11
wonders of these assessments, without thinking in parallel about real problems (2010, p.
10). Herein lies a great challenge for the interested practitioner, namely to transform those
caveats into opportunities for development and critical reflection.

VI. Conclusion

It can be concluded that the alternative assessment project was overall effective in
that it combined a variety of non-conventional methods, which provided useful data about
the learning process and led to considerable improvement in the learners' oral ability. What
is more, it engaged both learners and their teacher in a self-fulfilling journey into reflection,
research and critical thinking. Above all, though, it demonstrated that educators and their
students can take an active role in ameliorating the negative effects of curricular and
assessment dissonance. In this respect, the alternative assessment analysed in this paper
will, hopefully, function as a helpful aid for those wishing to adopt such practices in their
own teaching context.

12
 ENDNOTES

1
The National foreign language curriculum (EPS) currently implemented in Greek state schools, is
a process oriented, progressivist and learner-centred curriculum, which emphasises
multilingualism and communicative interaction and focuses on what learners are able to
accomplish with the target language following the principles of the Common European Framework
(Dendrinou & Karavas 2013; Kataropoulou, 2013b). However, the basic tenets of the curriculum
have not yet found their way into the assessment and testing practices followed by EFL teachers
who, paradoxically, are required by state decrees to use traditional testing techniques and conduct
summative evaluation (Papaefthymiou-Lytra, 2012).

2
The prescribed course book offers a certain variety of oral tasks, but overall, the speaking skill is
rarely the focal point of the lesson and is mainly employed as a means to practise other areas of
language (Kataropoulou, 2013a). Likewise, assessing oral fluency is not included in the formal
testing of the target language, even in the newly reformed 2012 guidelines, which for the time
being apply only to a limited number of schools (Dendrinos, 2013). Finally, oral production was not
included in the assessment of students' linguistic competences in the recently conducted large
scale survey (ESLC) concerning foreign language learning across Europe (Dendrinos, et al.,
2013).

3
As opposed to an assessment of learning, or summative assessment (Assessment Reform
Group (ARG), 2002)

4
See Cochran-Smith & Lytle, (1990) and Baumann & Duffy-Hester, (2002), cited in Boyd-Batstone,
(2004).

5
Vygotsky's learning theory is centred around the idea of a cognitive zone of proximal
development (ZPD), which involves the tasks a child can achieve by means of peer or adult
assistance (Karavas & Manolopoulou-Sergi, 2004, pp. 32 33). Vygotsky's theory is used by a
number of researchers to attest to the necessity for alternative assessment procedures, such as
peer-observation schemes (Min, 2004; Turner, 2012).

6
See Patri, (2002), as well as the National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC) online
article on Alternative Assessment (2004).

7
The importance of involving learners in assessment material design has been emphasised in

13
relevant literature (Searby & Ewers, 1997; Dancer & Kamvounias, 2005).

8
The teacher made slight modifications to the task sheets provided to the second group of
participants, so that they would not have an advantage over the first group who had previously
observed the task in performance.

9
See Messick, (1989) and Broadfoot, (2005). Additionally, Huerta-Macias, (1995), Hamayan,
(1995) and Lynch (2001), propose that it is inaccurate to evaluate alternative assessment in terms
of traditional testing criteria (cited in Tsagari, 2011).

10
See Dendrinos, 2006; 2010 and Shohamy, 2011.

11
See for example Aryadoust, (2016), Winke, Gass & Myford, (2012) and Rollinson, (2005)
respectively.

14
 REFERENCES

Abbas, Z. (2012) Difficulties in using methods of alternative assessment in teaching from

Iraqui instructors point of view Al Fatih Journal, 48: 23 45.

Airasian, P. W. (2005) Classroom Assessment: Concepts and applications. Boston:

McGraw Hill.

Aryadoust, V. (2016) "Gender and academic major bias in peer assessment of oral
presentations. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13:1, 1-24.

Assessment Reform Group (ARG) (2002) Assessment for learning: 10 principles.

Cambridge: University of Cambridge, Assessment Reform Group.

Bachman, L.F. & Palmer, A.S. (1996) Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Baker, E.L. (2010) What probably works in alternative assessment: CREST report 772.
Los Angeles, C.A.: University of California, National Centre for Research on
Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (CREST).

Baumann, J., & Duffy-Hester, A. (2002). Making sense of class-room worlds: Methodology
in teacher research". In Kamil, M., Mosenthal, P., Pearson, P.D. & Barr. R. (Eds.),
Methods of literacy research. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Black, P. & William, D. (2001) Inside the black box: Raising standards through class-room
assessment British Educational Research Association (BERA).

Boyd-Batstone, P. Focused anecdotal records assessment: a tool for standards based,

authentic assessment. The Reading Teacher, 58 / 3: 230 239. At
https://www.learner.org/workshops/teachreading35/pdf/anectodal_records.pdf
[Accessed April, 14, 2016].

Broadfoot, P. (2005) Dark alleys and blind bends: testing the language of learning.
Language Testing, 22 / 2: 123 141.

Brown, D. & Hudson, T. (1998) "The alternatives in language assessment" TESOL

Quarterly, 32 / 4: 653 675.

Bullock, D. (2010) "Learner self-assessment: an investigation into teachers' beliefs". ELT

Journal, 61 / 2: 114 125.

Burke, R. (2015) Liberating the learner through self-assessment. Cambridge Journal of

Education, 46 / 1: 97 111.

Chalkia, E. (2012) Self assessment as an alternative method of assessing speaking skills

in the sixth grade of a Greek state primary school classroom. Research Papers in
Language Teaching and Learning, 3/1: 225 239.

15
Cheng, W. & Warren, M. (2005) Peer assessment of language proficiency Language
Testing, 22 / 1: 93 121.

Chirimbu, S. (2013) Using alternative assessment methods in foreign language teaching.

Case study: Alternative assessment of business English for university students.
Scientific Bulletin of the Politechnica University of Timisoara:Transactions on
Modern Languages, 12 / 1: 91 98.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1990). Insider/outsider:Teacher research and

knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.

Colby-Kelly, C. & Turner, C.E. (2009) AFL Research in the L2 classroom and evidence of
usefulness: Taking formative assessment to the next level Canadian Modern
Language Review, 64: 9 38.

Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crooks, T.J. (2007) Key factors in the effectiveness of assessment for learning. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.

Dancer, D. & Kamvounias, P. (2005) Student involvement in assessment: a project

designed to assess class participation fairly and reliably. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 / 4: 445 454. At http://www-tandfonline-
com.proxy.eap.gr/doi/full/10.1080/02602930500099235 [Accessed, 11 April,
2016].

Davison, C. (2007) Views from the chalkface: English language school based assessment
in Hong Kong. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4 / 1: 37 68.

Dendrinos, B. (2006) Mediation in communication, language teaching and testing.

Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22: 9 35.

Dendrinos, B. (2010) The role of language testing in supporting multilingualism. The

RceL e-periodical, at http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/periodical/research8_en.htm [Accessed
13 October, 2015].

Dendrinos, B., Zouganeli, K. & E. Karavas (2013) Foreign language learning in Greek
schools: European survey on language competences. National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens, Research centre for language teaching, testing and
assesment & Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, Institute of Educational
Policy (IEP). At
http://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/ENL132/Session%2003%3A
%20FL%20teaching//learning%20in%20Greece/ESLC_EN.pdf [Accessed, 14
April, 2016].

16
, . (2013) .
:
. Eds. , . & E. : &
.

, . & , E. (2013)
: .
: & .

Ellis, G. & Sinclair, B. (1989) Learning to learn English: A course in learner training.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A
meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks". Review of Educational
Research, 70 / 3: 287 322.

Finch, A. (2007) Involving language learners in assessment: a new paradigm. Kyunpook

National University, at:
http://www.finchpark.com/arts/Involving_students_in_assessment_2007.pdf
[Accessed, 12 April, 2016].

Fulcher, G. (2000) "The communicative legacy in language testing". System, 28 / 483

497.

Fulcher, G. & Svalberg, A. (2013) Limited aspects of reality: Frames of reference in

language assessment. International Journal of English Studies, 13 / 2: 1 19.

Genessee, F. & Upshur, J. (1996) Classroom-based evaluation in second language

education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hamayan, E.V. (1995) Approaches to alternative assessment. Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 15: 212 226.

Harris, M. (1997) Self-assessment of language learning in formal settings. ELT Journal,

51 / 1: 12 20.

Harris,M. & McCann P. (1994) Assessment: Handbook for the English classroom.
Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.

Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Huerta-Macias, A. (1995) Alternative assessment: responses to commonly asked

questions. TESOL Journal, 5 / 1: 8 11.

Karavas, K. & E. Manolopoulou Sergi (2004) Course design and evaluation: Evaluation,
innovation and implementation, Vol. 3. Patras: Hellenic Open University.

17
Kataropoulou, E. (2013a) Describe and critically evaluate your teaching situation
regarding the teaching of the speaking skill and reflect on the teaching outcome of
an original speaking lesson. Unpublished assignment for M.Ed. Module AGG-23
(Language learning skills and Materials), Patras, Hellenic Open University.

Kataropoulou, E. (2013b) Highlighting the differences in educational and language

orientation between the 1977 and the EPS curriculum for TEFL in the Greek
Education System: The Implications for learners and teachers. Unpublished
assignment for M.Ed. Module AGG-53 (Course Design and Evaluation), Patras,
Hellenic Open University.

Kataropoulou, E. (2014a ) Allowing learners to speak for themselves: Conducting Needs

Analysis for a general English course in a Greek state school. Unpublished
assignment for M.Ed. Module AGG-53 (Course Design and Evaluation), Patras,
Hellenic Open University.

Kataropoulou, E. (2014b) Examining Think Teen: A content specific evaluation of the

English course book implemented in the 1 st grade of Greek Junior High schools
Unpublished assignment for M.Ed. Module AGG-53 (Course Design and
Evaluation), Patras, Hellenic Open University.

Kohonen, V. (1997) Authentic assessment as an integration of language learning,

teaching, evaluation and the teacher's professional growth In Huhta, A., Kohonen,
V., Kurki-Suonio, L & Luoma, S. (Eds), Current developments and alternatives in
language assessment: Proceedings of the LTRC 1996. University of Jyvaskyla:
Jyvaskyla, 7 22.

Kolb, D.A., Boyatzis, R.E. & Mainemelis, C. (2001) Experiential learning theory: previous
research and new directions. Perspectives on thinking, learning and cognitive
styles, 1: 227 247.

Leung, C. (2004) Developing formative teacher assessment: knowledge, practice and

change. Language Assessment Quarterly, 1 / 1: 19 41.

Long, M. H. (2005) Methodological issues in learner needs analysis. In Long, M.H.(Ed.),

Second language needs analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lovelock, C. (2002) Individual assessment cards. English Teaching Forum, 40 4: 1 -10.

Luoma, S. (2004) Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lynch, B. (2001) Rethinking assessment from a critical perspective. Language Testing,

18 / 4: 351 372.

Messick, S. (1989) Validity. In Linn, R.L. (Ed.), Educational Measurement. New York:
Macmillan and American Council of Education.

Min, H. T. (2004) Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33:
293 308.

18
Nation, P. (1989) Speaking activities: Five features. ELT Journal, 43 / 1: 24 29.

National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC) (2004) Assessing learning:

Alternative assessment. George Washington University.
At http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/assessing/alternative.htm [Accessed, 10 April,
2016].

Newfields, T. (2006) Teacher development and assessment literacy. Authentic

communication: Proceedings of the 5 th annual JALT Pan SIG conference.
Shizuoka, Japan: Tokai University, College of Marine Science.

O Malley, J. M. & Valdez Pierce, L. (1992) Performance and portfolio assessment for
language minority students. NCBE Program Information Guide Series, 9: 1 31,
at: http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/ncbepubs/pigs/pig9.htm

Papaefthymiou Lytra, S. (2012) Foreign language testing and assessment in Greece:

An overview and appraisal Research Papers in Language Teaching and
Learning, 3/1: 22 32.

Patri, M. (2002) The influence of peer feedback on self and peer-assessment of oral
skills. Language Testing 19 / 2: 109 131.

Puhl, C. A. (1997) Develop, not judge: Continuous assessment in the ESL classroom
Forum, 35 / 2: 2 19.

, . & , . (2005) ''

:
, 10 : 20 33.

Rea-Dickins, P. (2006) Currents and eddies in the discourse of assessment: A learning

focused interpretation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16 / 2: 164
188.

Rollinson, P. (2005) Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59 / 1: 23
30.

Rubin, J. (1975) What the good language learner can teach us TESOL Quarterly, 9 / 1:
41 50.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and
groups. Handbook of child psychology. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley.

Saito, H. (2008) EFL classroom peer-assessment: training effects on rating and

commenting. Language Testing, 25 / 4: 553 581.

Salem, S.K.I.(2012) Group work and attitudes of non English major students towards
learning EFL. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2 / 4: 192
197.

19
Searby, M. & Ewers, T. (1997) An evaluation of the use of peer assessment in higher
education: a case study in the School of Music, Kingston University. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22 / 4: 371 383. At http://www-tandfonline-
com.proxy.eap.gr/doi/full/10.1080/02602930500099235 [Accessed, 11 April,
2016].

Shohamy, E. (2001) The power of tests: A Critical perspective on the uses f language
tests. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

Shohamy, E. (2011) Assessing multilingual competences: Adopting construct valid

assessment policies. The Modern Language Journal. 95 / 3: 418 429.

Smith, K. (2000) Self assessment as a foreign language in applying for jobs and higher
education studies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26: 315 330.

Tan, K. (2007) Conceptions of self-assessment: what is needed for long term learning? In
Boud, D. & Falchikov, N., (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education:
learning for the long term. London: Routledge.

Taylor, L. (2005) Washback and impact ELT Journal, 59 / 2: 154 155.

Todd, R. W. (2002) Using self-assessment for evaluation. English Teaching Forum, 40 /

1: 16 19.

Tsagari, C. & West, R. (2004) Testing and assessment in language learning: Assessing
students without tests, Vol. 3. Patras: Hellenic Open University.

Tsushima, R. (2015) Methodological diversity in language assessment research: The role

of mixed methods in classroom-based language assessment studies.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14 / 2: 104 121.

Turner, C. E. (2012) Classroom assessment. In Fulcher, G. & Davidson, F. (Eds.), The

Routledge handbook of language testing London: Routledge.

, . (2011) . The Rcel e-

periodical at http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/periodical/prev_articles.htm [Accessed 10 April,
2016]

Vlanti, S. (2012) Assessement practices in the English language classroom of Greek

Junior High School Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 3/1:
92 122.

Vygotsky, L. (1986) Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Watanabe, Y. (2004) Teacher factors mediating washback In L.Y. Cheng & Y. Watanabe,
(Eds.) Washback in language testing: Research context and methods. Mahwah,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

20
West, R. (2004) Testing and assessment in language learning: Principles and approaches
to language testing, Vol 1. Patras: Hellenic Open University.

Winke, P., Gass, S. & Myford, C. (2012) Raters L2 background as a potential source of
bias in rating oral performance. Language Testing, 30 / 2: 231 252.

Worley, T. M. (2001) Alternative assessment: Methods to make learning more

meaningful. College of Education, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Savanah,
Georgia.

21
 APPENDIX I: NEEDS ANALYSIS DATA

Part A: Data about learners attitudes, motivation, learning needs and assessment
preferences
What are your feelings about English? Number of learners

No Answer
I agree

I disagree
I strongly

Neither agree

I strongly
nor disagree

disagree
agree
a. I enjoy learning English. 7 15 3
b. English is a difficult language. 2 4 3 12 4
c. English is a very useful language. 10 12 2 1
d. English has a rich vocabulary. 8 12 1 4
e. English has a lot of grammar. 5 7 2 9 2
f. I like the way English sounds. 10 8 2 3 2
g. English pronunciation is easy. 5 16 4
h. English has many idioms. 6 9 3 2 5
i. English is necessary to communicate with people 12 10 3
around the world.
j. English is fun to learn. 8 8 3 3 2 1
k. English spelling is difficult. 1 6 3 8 4 1
l. It is easy to talk to native speakers of English. 3 8 1 8 5
Table I: Learners general attitudes towards English

Why are you learning English? better job

travel abroad

get certification
6% 3% 17%
7%
communicate

8% speak an important world language

15% high marks

9%
read books

use computer
11% 13%
understand songs in English
11%
study abroad

Table II: Learners motivation

22
 Skills learners wish to improve in

4% writing
4% 16% speaking
0% 11%
reading
4% listening
vocabulary
3%
Internet use
classroom interaction
3% presentation skills
7% 30% spelling
mediation
13% tests/exams
5%
grammar

Table III: Learners' perceived problem areas in English

TOP 10 MOST USEFUL ACTIVITIES

NUMBER OF STUDENTS

25

20
15

10
5

ACTIVITIES

Table IV: Learners' activity preferences

23
 ASSESSMENT PREFERENCES

25

20

15

10

0
reading writing speaking listening vocabulary grammar projects portfolios
tasks tasks tasks tasks exercises exercises

Table V: Learners' assessment preferences

24
 Part B: The Questionnaire Used
NEEDS ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE

Please take some time to fill out this questionnaire which will help improve the English lessons
you have had so far at school and your assessment. If you do not understand a question feel
free to ask. There are no right or wrong answers, so all you need to do is express how you
feel about each question.

A. ATTITUDES TOWARDS ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING

1. What are your feelings about English?1

I strongly agree

I agree

I disagree

I strongly disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree
a. I enjoy learning English.
b. English is a difficult language.
c. English is a very useful language.
d. English has a rich vocabulary.
e. English has a lot of grammar.
f. I like the way English sounds.
g. English pronunciation is easy.
h. English has many idioms.
i. English is necessary to communicate with people
around the world.
j. English is fun to learn.
k. English spelling is difficult.
l. It is easy to talk to native speakers of English.
I strongly agree

I agree

I disagree

2. How do you feel about your English course in

I strongly disagree
Neither agree nor

Junior High School?2

disagree

a. I am enjoying my English course.

b. Classroom atmosphere is positive.
c. I often have negative feelings during my English
classes.
d. My feelings about my English teacher are positive.
e. My feelings about my classmates are positive.
f. I think I am doing well in my English course.

25
g. It is positive that we are split into levels for our
English classes. 3
h. I dont find my English course in Junior High
school useful for me.
i. I dont think students can learn English in Junior
High school.
j. I cannot pass a certification exam (eg. KPG, FCE,
ECCE) only by learning English in Junior High school.

3. Why are you learning English? 4 - I am learning English.

Tick up to 5
boxes
a. to get high marks at school.
b. to get a certificate in English (FCE, ECCE, etc)
c. to travel to other countries.
d. to communicate with people from other countries.
e. to get a better job when I finish school.
f. to study abroad.
g. to learn about English speaking countries.
h. to understand songs in English.
i. to watch TV or films in English.
j. to use your computer (the Internet / playing games etc)
k. to read books in English.
l. to be able to speak an important world language.
m. to make my parents happy.
n. to be the same as my friends who are learning English.
o. I dont know why I am learning English.

B. LANGUAGE NEEDS
Badly

Very badly
Very well

Well

Moderately well

1. How well do you think you can do the following

in your English classes at school?

a. Read and understand texts in your English course

book.
b. Write texts (letters, descriptions, articles, etc).

26
c. Listen and understand information.
d. Speak in English to your teacher.
e. Understand your teachers instructions.
f. Speak in English to your classmates.
g. Learn new vocabulary.
h. Spell words correctly.
i. Find information in English on the Internet.
j. Present your work to the whole class.
k. Read information in Greek and use it to say or
write something in English.
l. Write well in tests / exams.

2. Now look at the above sentences again and write down the three (3) most important
things that you would like to become better at?
(Choose from letters a l):
1. ________ 2. _________ 3. __________

C. INTERESTS / PREFERENCES / LEARNING STYLES

I dont like it at all

I like this a lot

I like it

I am not sure

I dont like it
1. How do you feel about the following activities
in your English classes at school?4

a. grammar exercises
b. speaking activities
c. watching videos
d. using a computer
e. interactive whiteboard activities
f. listening activities
g. writing activities
h. reading texts
i. vocabulary exercises
j. homework
k. games
l. doing projects
m. role plays
n. songs

27
 o. reading English literature
p. searching for information on the Internet
q. learning words
r. dictation exercises

2. Now look at the above activities again and write down five (5) activities which you
think help you the most to learn English:
(Choose from letters a r):

1. ______ 2. _______ 3. _______ 4. ________ 5. _______

D. How would you prefer to be assessed? Please, tick up to three choices:

a. reading tasks
b. writing tasks
c. speaking tasks
d. listening tasks
e. vocabulary exercises
f. grammar exercises
g. projects
h. portfolios
i. peer-assessment
j. self-assessment
k. recordings
l. diaries

1
Adapted from a Needs Analysis questionnaire for learners of Cantonese in Hong Kong used by Li &
Richards in 1995 (found in Richards, 2012, pp. 73 79).
2
Questions 2a and 2b are from Davies, 2006, p. 11.
3
In most Junior High schools in Greece learners are given a placement test at the beginning of the school
year and are subsequently placed into levels of more and less advanced levels. This is not the case with
their English classes in Primary school; therefore this particular question aims at investigating the learners
attitude towards this novel situation.
4
Adapted from Seedhouse, 1995, p. 65.

Note: The needs analysis questionnaire was an adapted version of the one used in a
previous Needs Analysis project (Kataropoulou, 2014a).

28
 APPENDIX II
THE PEER OBSERVATION RATING SCALE
Students name: .. Date: .
Activity type:
Did the student. Usually Sometimes Rarely

1. speak loudly enough?

2. speak clearly?
3. organize his/her thoughts?
4. agree appropriately?
5. disagree appropriately?
6. interrupt appropriately?
7. respond fully to questions?
8. ask questions to others?
9. make a lot of pauses?
10. volunteer information?
11. justify his/her answers?
12. use relevant vocabulary?
13. pronounce words correctly?
14. use correct grammar?
15. show interest in the activity?
16. co-operate well in the group?
17. show originality, initiative and inventiveness?
18. use Greek during the activity?
19. appear impolite / offensive to another student?
20. self-correct when making a mistake?
21. depend too much on the teacher/another student for help?
22. ask for help when necessary?
23. offer help when necessary?
24. find the activity too difficult?
Adapted from O Malley & Valdez Pierce (1996 p. 207) and Harris & McCann (1994, p. 21), cited in Tsagari &
West (2004, pp. 298 302).

29
 APPENDIX III
THE SELF-ASSESSMENT RATING SCALE & CHECKLIST
Self evaluation checklist: Please tick the sentences that you honestly believe apply
to you:
As a participant / speaker I Usually Sometimes Rarely
1. spoke loudly enough
2. spoke clearly
3. organized my thoughts
4. agreed appropriately
5. disagreed appropriately
6. interrupted appropriately
7. responded fully to questions
8. asked questions to others
9. made a lot of pauses
10. volunteered information
11. justified my answers
12. used relevant vocabulary
13. pronounced words correctly
14. used correct grammar
15. show interest in the activity
16. co-operate well in the group
17. showed originality, initiative and inventiveness
18. use Greek during the activity
19. appeared impolite / offensive to another student
20. self-corrected when making a mistake
21. depended too much on the teacher/another student for
help
22. asked for help when necessary
23. offered help when necessary
24. found the activity too difficult

Now, please put a tick next to the sentences that you agree with:

As a participant / speaker
I feel I have performed well
I enjoyed this activity
It was difficult for me to remember the words I needed to use
I found it difficult to work with the other students in the group
I needed more help from the teacher

30
I felt stressed during the activity
I was not able to express what I wanted to say
I felt there was not enough time to complete the activity

As an observer.
I found it difficult to complete the checklist
I found observation tiring and boring
I learnt a lot from the observation
I gained from listening to my fellow-students ideas
I learnt new vocabulary
I improved my pronunciation
I was able to improve my own communication skills
I felt stressed during the activity
I feel I have made accurate observations
I learnt how to listen to others more carefully

Overall .
I prefer being an observer than a speaker
I would really like to do this type of work again
I dont want to hear about observation again
The whole experience has improved my English
The observation activities have improved my relationships with my classmates
I have become a better speaker of English

31
 APPENDIX IV

A. GROUP DISCUSSION LESSON PLAN

(FIRST OBSERVATION SESSION)
LESSON PLAN: Discussing in groups

Procedure Objectives Time

1. Half of the students are observers and
half are participants.
Having written their CVs and letters of
application in the previous lesson,
participating Ls are asked to get in groups
and decide how each person can help in a
local bazaar.
It is suggested that they use relevant
expressions from a language bank
appearing in their course books.
At the end, they are required to reach a
decision and prepare a report on who will
do what for the bazaar.
2. Ls are asked to report their decisions to
class. The whole class (not the observers)
reach a decision about what each student
will do for the bazaar.
3. Steps one and two are repeated with the
other half of the class who switch from
observers to participants.
4. All students fill in their self-assessment
forms.
Note: This is a slightly modified version of a speaking activity appearing on p. 92 of the Student's
Book.
- to practice expressing abilities 10 mins
and preferences
- to use given expressions
appropriately
- to interact with the aim of
reaching a decision
- to cooperate well within the
group by showing respect to
others and offering assistance
when necessary.
- integration of the reading skill.
- more opportunities to use the 5 mins
target language in order to make
a decision
- enhance co-operation
- develop presentation skills
15 mins

32
 B. ROLE PLAY LESSON PLAN

(SECOND OBSERVATION SESSION)

LESSON PLAN: Role-play

Procedure Objectives Time

1. Half of the students are - enhance communicative 15

observers and half are participants. ability mins
Ls are asked to work in pairs taking - engage in meaningful
the roles of a student interested in interaction in an authentic
attending a summer course in context
England and a representative of an - use taught vocabulary /
English college supplying expressions in real-life
necessary information. Each interaction
student is provided with a relevant
task sheet containing the
information they need in note form.

2. Step one is repeated with the 15

other half of the class who switch mins
from observers to participants. In
this stage students are given
different roles, although the general
topic remains the same, so as to
avoid repetition.
4. All students fill in their evaluation
forms.

33
 C. PYRAMID DISCUSSION LESSON PLAN

(THIRD OBSERVATION SESSION)

LESSON PLAN: Pyramid discussion

Procedure Objectives Time

1. Half of the students are observers and
half are participants. Ls are asked to read a -individual involvement in a
list of activities that they can do during a
summer course in England and decide on
the two most preferable ones.
- Ls discuss their choices in pairs and
agree on two activities.
- integrate reading comprehension. 2 mins
problem-solving activity.
- preparation for oral production.
- production of communicatively- 5 mins
oriented oral discourse.
- engage in a problem solving
activity.
- practise of language related to
suasion and argument.

3. Ls form groups of four and discuss so as - same as in phase 2. 5 mins

to agree on two activities again. - more opportunities for negotiation
of meaning.

4. All participants make a decision as to the - enhance communicative abilty 3 mins

two most popular activities to be included - learn to discuss
in the course programme. - enhance co-operation between Ls.
5. Steps 1 4 are repeated with the other 15 mins
half of the class who switch from observers
to participants.
6. All students fill in their self-assessment
forms.

34
 D. MEDIATION LESSON PLAN

(FOURTH OBSERVATION SESSION)

LESSON PLAN: Mediation Activity

Procedure Objectives Time

1. Half of the students are observers and
half are participants. Ls are asked to work
in pairs and perform a mediation activity in
which one member of the pair tells the
other what his/her horoscope (written in
Greek) says.
- Ls are asked to get together in groups of
four and agree on a prediction that they
would find desirable. They write it down
and a spokesperson presents it to class.
- to enhance communicative skills. 8 mins
- to improve ability in mediation.
- to become involved in an authentic
speaking task.
- further speaking practice. 7 mins
- enhance presentation skills.
- to integrate the writing skill.

3. Steps one and two are repeated with the - same as above. 15 mins
other half of the class who switch from
observers to participants. They receive
slightly different mediation rubrics, but the
group discussion task remains the same.

4. All students fill in their self-assessment

forms.

35
 APPENDIX V: INDIVIDUAL REPORT CARDS (AN INDICATIVE SAMPLE)
STUDENTS NAME: E. K. OBSERVERS NAME: K. L.
PEER OBSERVATION SELF-ASSESSMENT TEACHERS RATINGS
25/2 3/2 10/3 17/3 progress 25/2 3/2 10/3 17/3 progress 25 / 2 10/ 3 progress Teachers Comments

1. spoke loudly enough ** * ** *** ** ** ** ** ** ** Well done!

2. speak clearly * ** ** *** * * ** *** ** *** You have made progress
in all categories!
3. organize his/her thoughts ** * ** *** * ** ** *** ** ***
You are now able to
4. agree appropriately ** ** ** *** ** ** ** *** ** *** organize your thoughts
5. disagree appropriately * * ** ** * * * ** * ** and express yourself
6. interrupt appropriately * * *** ** * * ** ** * ** accurately, using
7. respond fully to questions * * ** ** * * * ** * ** relevant vocabulary and
pronouncing words
8. ask questions to others * ** * * * * * * * **
correctly.
9. make a lot of pauses ** ** * * *** *** ** ** ** * You also speak quite
10. volunteer information ** ** ** *** ** ** ** ** ** *** loudly and clearly and you
11. justify his/her answers * ** ** *** * ** ** *** * *** use more English than at
12. use relevant vocabulary ** * ** *** ** ** ** *** * ** the beginning.
13. pronounce words correctly ** ** ** *** ** ** *** *** ** *** You are good at
interacting with others,
14. use correct grammar * ** ** *** ** ** ** *** ** ***
but you could work on
15. show interest in the activity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** asking and answering
16. co-operate well in the group ** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** questions, as well as
17. show originality, initiative and ** ** ** *** * * ** ** ** *** interrupting and self-
inventiveness correcting appropriately.
18. use Greek during the activity ** ** ** * ** ** ** * ** * Its great how well you
have managed to justify
19. appear impolite / offensive to * * * * * * * * * *
your answers though!
another student You are also very co-
20. self-correct when making a * * ** ** * * * * * ** operative and polite and
mistake committed to learning
21. depended too much on the ** ** ** * *** *** ** * ** * English. Keep up the good
teacher / another student for help work!

22. asked for help when necessary *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** **
23. offered help when necessary *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Date: 30 / 3 / 2016
E. Kataropoulou
24. found the activity too difficult ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** *
*** usually, ** sometimes, * rarely

36
 APPENDIX VI
WORKSHEET FOR PRACTISING EXPRESSING AND JUSTIFYING OPINIONS

- Note the following ways you can use to express your opinion:
I believe, in my opinion, it seems to me (that), the way I see it.

- However, simply stating your opinion is not enough when you need to
persuade others. Therefore, you have to think of ways to justify or extend what
you are saying. Here are a few examples of giving opinions about activities to do
during an educational trip to a college abroad:

I dont think going bungee jumping is a good idea as I am too scared of heights.
I think that organising a party for all the international students would be great
because well get to meet people from all over the world and practise our
English.
The way I see it, going to a theme park would not be of much use. We can always
do that back home.
I believe most students would enjoy a visit to Cambridge. Who wouldnt like to
see one of the most famous universities in the world?

Why dont you try to extend the following statements?

Having a karaoke evening would be loads of fun.

Watching videos doesnt seem all that interesting.
Going shopping in London is a must.
We simply have to organise a farewell party.

Further practice
You may want to visit the following website and try to extend the response of a candidate
of the IELTS exam. The level of difficulty is higher, but you can manage it! Give it a try!

http://www.ieltsbuddy.com/expressing-opinions.html

37
 APPENDIX VII: PEER OBSERVATION DATA
OBSERVATION 1 OBSERVATION 2 OBSERVATION 3 OBSERVATION 4
(24 students) (25 students) (24 students) (24 students)
Usually Some Rarely Usually Some Rarely Usually Some Rarely Usually Some Rarely
times times times times
1. speak loudly enough? 15 6 3 16 6 3 17 5 2 17 5 2
2. speak clearly? 14 7 3 15 7 3 17 6 1 16 7 1
3. organize his/her thoughts? 12 6 6 10 7 8 13 4 7 15 6 3
4. agree appropriately? 7 11 6 5 12 8 12 9 3 12 5 7
5. disagree appropriately? 6 13 5 4 7 14 13 6 5 17 4 3
6. interrupt appropriately? 5 11 8 4 14 7 12 6 6 14 7 3
7. respond fully to questions? 6 7 11 9 7 9 13 7 4 13 7 4
8. ask questions to others? 4 9 11 12 8 5 9 7 8 18 5 1
9. make a lot of pauses? 8 9 7 9 10 6 6 4 14 3 3 18
10. volunteer information? 9 4 11 4 5 16 13 7 4 12 7 5
11. justify his/her answers? 8 6 10 7 6 12 15 6 3 16 6 2
12. use relevant vocabulary? 11 11 2 7 13 5 14 8 2 15 7 3
13. pronounce words correctly? 15 6 3 15 8 2 17 7 0 16 8 0
14. use correct grammar? 10 5 9 8 7 10 12 8 4 14 7 3
15. show interest in the activity? 13 8 3 14 9 1 13 9 2 13 8 3
16. co-operate well in the group? 11 10 3 11 10 4 14 9 1 14 7 3
17. show originality, initiative and 8 7 9 7 11 7 8 9 7 13 7 4
inventiveness?
18. use Greek during the activity? 10 5 9 8 6 11 6 7 11 2 7 15
19. appear impolite / offensive to 2 7 15 2 8 15 0 2 22 0 1 23
another student?
20. self-correct when making a 8 10 6 7 10 8 12 8 4 15 5 4
mistake?
21. depend too much on the 3 11 10 2 13 10 0 12 12 1 13 11
teacher / another student for help?
22. ask for help when necessary? 9 11 4 9 12 4 14 10 0 18 6 0
23. offer help when necessary? 10 8 6 9 10 6 16 8 0 20 4 0
24. find the activity too difficult? 6 7 11 8 9 8 3 5 16 2 3 19
TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS 24 25 24 24

38
 APPENDIX VIII: SELF-ASSESSMENT DATA
SESSION 1 SESSION 2 SESSION 3 SESSION 4
(24 students) (25 students) (24 students) (24 students)
Usually Someti Rarely Usually Someti Rarely Usually Someti Rarely Usually Someti Rarely
mes mes mes mes
1. speak loudly enough? 12 6 6 13 7 5 15 5 4 16 5 3
2. speak clearly? 16 4 4 16 3 6 17 3 4 18 2 4
3. organize his/her thoughts? 9 5 10 10 7 8 11 7 6 14 6 4
4. agree appropriately? 7 7 10 9 7 9 14 7 3 14 8 2
5. disagree appropriately? 8 9 7 4 6 15 11 6 7 14 5 6
6. interrupt appropriately? 3 10 11 3 14 8 10 5 9 12 5 7
7. respond fully to questions? 6 7 11 9 5 11 11 5 8 12 7 5
8. ask questions to others? 2 9 13 10 5 10 9 8 7 15 4 5
9. make a lot of pauses? 13 7 4 10 10 5 8 8 8 5 7 12
10. volunteer information? 6 9 9 9 8 8 12 8 4 10 10 4
11. justify his/her answers? 14 5 5 12 10 3 12 10 2 10 11 3
12. use relevant vocabulary? 10 6 8 8 12 5 12 10 2 14 5 5
13. pronounce words correctly? 8 5 11 12 6 7 12 8 4 12 9 3
14. use correct grammar? 9 3 12 7 7 9 12 5 7 14 8 2
15. show interest in the activity? 15 5 4 14 6 5 14 7 3 19 3 2
16. co-operate well in the group? 14 10 0 17 7 1 18 4 2 20 4 0
17. show originality, initiative and 5 5 14 8 9 8 5 10 9 7 8 9
inventiveness?
18. use Greek during the activity? 10 8 6 10 10 5 4 9 11 3 10 11
19. appear impolite / offensive to 1 5 18 1 5 19 0 2 22 1 0 23
another student?
20. self-correct when making a 7 7 10 5 9 11 10 8 6 10 8 6
mistake?
21. depend too much on the 7 9 8 5 10 10 3 10 11 1 12 11
teacher/another student for help?
22. ask for help when necessary? 7 11 6 9 12 4 12 11 1 15 9 0
23. offer help when necessary? 6 8 10 9 10 6 14 8 2 14 8 2
24. find the activity too difficult? 8 7 9 10 11 4 4 8 12 3 3 18
TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS 24 25 24 24

39
 APPENDIX IX: TEACHERS OBSERVATION DATA (1st group 12 students)
SESSION 1 SESSION 2 SESSION 3 SESSION 4
(12 students) (12 students)
Usually Someti Rarely Usually Someti Rarely Usually Someti Rarely Usually Someti Rarely
mes mes mes mes
1. speak loudly enough? 7 2 3 9 1 2
2. speak clearly? 6 3 3 8 2 2
3. organize his/her thoughts? 7 3 2 9 2 1
4. agree appropriately? 4 4 4 9 2 1
5. disagree appropriately? 4 6 2 7 4 1
6. interrupt appropriately? 3 5 4 7 3 2
7. respond fully to questions? 4 3 5 7 3 2
8. ask questions to others? 2 5 5 5 4 3
9. make a lot of pauses? 3 6 3 1 4 7
10. volunteer information? 5 3 4 8 2 2
11. justify his/her answers? 5 4 3 9 2 1
12. use relevant vocabulary? 4 4 4 6 5 1
13. pronounce words correctly? 3 5 4 7 5 0
14. use correct grammar? 5 3 4 9 2 1
15. show interest in the activity? 8 3 1 10 2 0
16. co-operate well in the group? 6 4 2 10 2 0
17. show originality, initiative and 5 3 4 7 3 2
inventiveness?
18. use Greek during the activity? 3 5 4 1 6 5
19. appear impolite / offensive to 1 3 8 0 1 11
another student?
20. self-correct when making a 3 5 4 7 3 2
mistake?
21. depend too much on the 1 8 3 0 6 6
teacher/another student for help?
22. ask for help when necessary? 5 5 2 7 5 0
23. offer help when necessary? 6 4 2 8 4 0
24. find the activity too difficult? 2 7 3 0 2 10
TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS 12 12

40
 TEACHERS OBSERVATION DATA (2nd group 12/13 students)
SESSION 1 SESSION 2 SESSION 3 SESSION 4
(13 students) (12 students)
Usually Someti Rarely Usually Someti Rarely Usually Someti Rarely Usually Someti Rarely
mes mes mes mes
1. speak loudly enough? 10 2 1 10 2 0
2. speak clearly? 7 3 3 10 2 0
3. organize his/her thoughts? 5 3 5 7 5 1
4. agree appropriately? 3 5 5 8 3 1
5. disagree appropriately? 2 4 7 8 2 0
6. interrupt appropriately? 2 4 7 9 2 1
7. respond fully to questions? 5 4 4 6 4 2
8. ask questions to others? 7 4 1 10 2 0
9. make a lot of pauses? 5 5 3 1 4 7
10. volunteer information? 2 7 4 6 4 2
11. justify his/her answers? 3 5 4 8 3 1
12. use relevant vocabulary? 3 5 5 8 3 1
13. pronounce words correctly? 9 3 1 10 2 0
14. use correct grammar? 3 4 6 6 5 1
15. show interest in the activity? 8 4 1 10 1 1
16. co-operate well in the group? 5 6 2 10 1 1
17. show originality, initiative and 4 5 4 6 6 0
inventiveness?
18. use Greek during the activity? 3 4 6 0 4 8
19. appear impolite / offensive to 1 5 7 0 1 11
another student?
20. self-correct when making a 4 5 4 8 3 1
mistake?
21. depend too much on the 1 6 6 0 3 9
teacher/another student for help?
22. ask for help when necessary? 5 5 3 8 4 0
23. offer help when necessary? 5 5 3 11 1 0
24. find the activity too difficult? 3 5 5 0 2 10
TOTAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS 13 12

41
 APPENDIX X
PEER OBSERVATION DATA DEMONSTRATING IMPROVEMENT

Correct grammar use

16

14

12
Number of students

10

0
Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely

(24 students) (25 students) (24 students) (24 students)

OBSERVATION 1 OBSERVATION 2 OBSERVATION 3 OBSERVATION 4

Frequency

Table I: Progress in accuracy grammar improvement

Vocabulary use

16

14

12
Number of students

10

0
Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely

(24 students) (25 students) (24 students) (24 students)

OBSERVATION 1 OBSERVATION 2 OBSERVATION 3 OBSERVATION 4

Frequency

Table II: Progress in accuracy vocabulary improvement

42
 Hesitation

20
18
16
Number of students

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely

(24 students) (25 students) (24 students) (24 students)

OBSERVATION 1 OBSERVATION 2 OBSERVATION 3 OBSERVATION 4

Frequency

Table III: Improvement in fluency reduction of hesitation

Justification of answers
18
16
16 15

14
12
Number of students

12
10
10
8
8 7
6 6 6 6
6

4 3
2
2

0
Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes
Usually

Rarely

Usually

Rarely
Usually

Rarely

Rarely

Usually

(24 students) (25 students) (24 students) (24 students)

OBSERVATION 1 OBSERVATION 2 OBSERVATION 3 OBSERVATION 4

Frequency

Table IV: Improvement in fluency - providing effective justification

43
 Appropriate agreement

14

12
Number of students

10

0
Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes

Sometimes
Usually

Rarely

Usually

Rarely
Rarely

Usually

Rarely

Usually
(24 students) (25 students) (24 students) (24 students)

OBSERVATION 1 OBSERVATION 2 OBSERVATION 3 OBSERVATION 4

Frequency

Table V: Improvement in fluency - progress in expressing agreement appropriately

Use of L1

16

14

12
Number of students

10

0
Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely

(24 students) (25 students) (24 students) (24 students)

OBSERVATION 1 OBSERVATION 2 OBSERVATION 3 OBSERVATION 4

Frequency

Table VI: Improvement in fluency - increased use of English

44
 Self-correction

16

14

12
Number of students

10

0
Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely

(24 students) (25 students) (24 students) (24 students)

OBSERVATION 1 OBSERVATION 2 OBSERVATION 3 OBSERVATION 4

Frequency

Table VII: Strategic competence Improvement in self-correction

Autonomy

14

12
Number of students

10

0
Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely Usually Sometimes Rarely

(24 students) (25 students) (24 students) (24 students)

OBSERVATION 1 OBSERVATION 2 OBSERVATION 3 OBSERVATION 4

Frequency

Table VIII: Improvement in learner autonomy

45