검색 전체 메뉴
맨 위로
OA 학술지
KFL Students’ Perceptions of Assessment, Feedback and Categories*
  • 비영리 CC BY-NC
KFL Students’ Perceptions of Assessment, Feedback and Categories*

신성철. 2014. 평가, 교사 피드백 및 평가 항목에 대한 한국어 학습자의 인식 조사연구. 한국어 교육 25-4: 51-75. 본 연구는 한국어 학습자가 인식하는 평가의 중요성, 교사 피드백의 중요성 및 평가 항목에 대한 선호도를 조사하였다. 외국어 또는 제2언어 학습에서 교사가 인식하는 평가와 학습자가 인식하는 평가의 차이는 학생과 교사 모두에게서 불만족스런 교수-학습 경험을 갖게 하고 교사의 평가 기획에 어려움을 초래하곤 한다. 교수와 평가의 대상인 학생들이 평가에 대해 어떻게 생각하고 왜 그렇게 생각하는지에 대해서 아는 것은 학생들이 배운 지식과 언어기술이 의도된 대로 의미있는 이유와 목적으로 평가되게 하고, 새로운 평가 방법의 가능성에 대한 통찰력을 얻을 수 있게 한다는 점에서 중요하다. 이를 위해 호주 대학교의 한국어 학습자 2, 3학년 학생 71명을 설문 조사하였다. 응답 분석 결과, 조사 대상 학생들은 평가와 피드백에 대해 매우 긍정적인 자세를 보였고 실용적 언어기술에 대한 평가를 선호하였다. 이에 대해 몇 가지 시사점을 논의하고 이를 반영하는 평가 방법들을 제안한다. (뉴사우스웨일즈 대학교)

한국어 , 평가 , 피드백 , 평가 항목 , 학습자 인식
  • 1. Introduction

    This study investigates KFL (Korean as a Foreign Language) students’ perceptions of language assessment in three aspects: importance of assessment; importance of feedback; and assessment categories. Assessment is an integral part of formal language instruction and yet there is often a gap between teachers’ and students’ perceptions on assessment in the context of second language learning and teaching, with the former concerning aspects that support students’ learning while the latter addresses more immediate functions such as grades. Such a gap or mismatch in perceptions results in unfavourable feedback from both students and the teacher, such as students’ unsatisfactory course evaluation and difficulties teachers may encounter when planning assessment. In general, teachers plan and implement teaching programs and then use various strategies to assess learners according to their requirements such as students' achievement, instructional needs and curriculum goals. The teacher and the class then move on, leaving unsuccessful students to achieve at a lower level in terms of formal assessment outcomes. However, given recent emerging trends in assessment practices that facilitate learner autonomy, it is worth identifying and understanding some basic views on assessment held by language students in a tertiary context to improve teaching and assessment practices. An investigation of this nature is valuable for both program and course convenors who are responsible for the curriculum, program evaluation and for making informed decisions based on results.

    Typically there are two factors which justify the assessment of students’ language learning (Frank, 2012). The first reason is for the improvement in students’ knowledge and skills and their learning, as well as the relevant language programs. The other reason is to provide evidence of student achievement to internal and external authorities. Typical types of L2 assessment include tests, open-ended questions, written compositions, oral presentations, projects, portfolios, performance tasks and essays. The question that guides the present study is how KFL students perceive the function of assessment, teachers’ feedback and categories or aspects to include in their language assessment. When it comes to assessment, teachers usually know what they want their students to learn, and subsequently about when, how often and how to assess. However, the question of ‘why’ rarely arises in the minds of teachers, who rarely seem to consider the question of what students may have in mind and why they perceive it that way. Investigating why, what and how students see themselves in relation to assessment is worthwhile. It can help ensure that the skills and knowledge of students are assessed for meaningful reasons and purposes as intended, and it could provide insights into new possibilities for different ways and aspects to assess students. To that end, this study reports on a small scale survey which set out to investigate opinions on the importance of assessment, feedback and preferences of assessment categories. The study then discusses the implications of the results in detail, focusing on emerging trends of individualised assessment1) and how such new types of assessment can be utilised in Korean as a foreign or second language classrooms.

    1)It is termed as ‘personal-response assessments’ in Brown and Hudson (1998) who discuss personal and individualised assessments such as portfolio, research project and self-assessments. These assessments allow each student’s responses to be different.

    2. Review of the Literature

    There are a number of studies which have examined L2 assessment issues(Brown and Hudson, 1998; Chappuis and Stiggins, 2002; Bachman, 2004;Ingram, 2005; Cummins and Davesne, 2009; Phakiti and Roever, 2011; Lynch, 2012; Stoynoff, 2012; Brown, 2013; Ketabi and Ketabi, 2014, to name a few). Throughout these studies, it is generally accepted that assessment provides diagnostic feedback on student’s knowledge and performance on language tasks, evaluates the student’s progress and needs and contributes to their L2 learning. Bachman (2004: 6-7) broadly defines assessment as “a process of collecting information about something that we are interested in, according to procedures that are systematic and substantially grounded”, and further notes that the result of such an assessment procedure can be a score, written or verbal description.

    In language education, assessment and its associated feedback are essential not just as a means to provide a measure of their marks and progress but more importantly as a means to engage them with their active language learning. Chappuis and Stiggins (2002: 40-42) argues for an underlying approach in which “assessment for learning” is valued rather than an “assessment of learning” approach, suggesting that involving students in the process of classroom assessment and focusing on increasing their learning can motivate students rather than merely measuring them. As three key components of assessment for learning, they discuss ‘student-involved assessment’, ‘effective teacher feedback’, and ‘the skills of self-assessment'. By assessing students’ knowledge of the language and their ability to use it they have been taught, teachers or assessors assume that the results will give them information about whether the goals and standards of the language course are being met. Yet we as teachers and as assessors know that there is often a gap between the goals and standards of education set for them, and their understanding of the subject matter and their ability demonstrated or performed in the assessment tasks.

    Ingram (2005), pointing out the problem of the gap between language tests and real-life language experience, argues that language testing needs more authenticity and suggests ways to develop tests to measure the learners’ ability to use the language in real-life situations. One such way advocated by Ingram is to utilise ‘performance-based’ assessments where students are required to carry out real-life and authentic tasks in real-life situations using authentic language in a face-to-face conversation or online.

    Through the assessment and evaluation process, teachers are led to ask themselves whether they have taught what they think they have taught, whether students have learnt what they are supposed to have learnt and whether there is any way to assess more appropriately in a way which promotes more effective learning. Stoynoff (2012: 529), reviewing the developments of classroom-based assessment over the last decade, evaluates that a new perspective towards learning and assessment has emerged and further emphasises the role of teachers in changing professional practice.

    In the meantime, Brown and Hudson (1998: 658-667) explore the advantages and disadvantages of three different categories of language assessment: (a) selected-response assessments (eg. true-false, matching, and multiple-choice); (b) constructed-response assessments (eg. fill-in, short-answer, and performance); and (c) personal-response assessments (eg. conference, portfolio, and self- or peer assessments). Among these it is worth noting personal-response assessments, which provide personal or individualized assessment where each student’s responses are allowed to be different.

    Ketabi and Ketabi (2014), who classify assessments according to their outcomes as formal vs informal, summative vs formative and explicit vs implicit, discuss positive effects of classroom and formative assessment. They argue that classroom-based assessment is used by teachers not only to obtain information about students’ L2 learning and progress but also to contribute to their students’ L2 learning.

    Cummins and Davesne (2009), who explore ways and effectiveness of using electronic portfolios’ qualitative assessment as a complementary tool, suggest ways of connecting electronic portfolios to language teaching and learning. They explain that in e-portfolios language learners collect, select and reflect a variety of media files as evidence to demonstrate how well they have met a goal and highlights its advantage as digital portfolios such as interactivity, a wide variety of artifacts and easiness of organisation. In the meantime, Brown (2013), pointing out that current assessment practices are based on monolingual native speaker benchmarks, argues that a multi-competence benchmark is required for language assessment in contexts where individual learners speak multiple languages.

    In reality, however, these ideal thoughts of assessment are often tempered by various internal and external factors such as perceptions of assessment, time constraints, rigid curriculum, workload, institutional assessment policy or societal/ecological factors. Worldwide trends and local contexts have also shaped language assessment practices and are reflected in them, as pointed out by Phakiti & Roever (2011), where they suggest that globalisation in the form of, for example, migration of skilled workforces and the increased mobility of tertiary students, has had impact on the language testing tradition in Australia and New Zealand. As argued by Lynch (2012: 603), a great deal of research in language testing has developed the technical aspects of measuring language ability but researchers still need to determine which aspects of individual language ability can and should be measured. There are many ways to help students learn more effectively and if assessment is to be the engine which drives student learning, one aspect that researchers should not underestimate or disregard is the investigation of students’ views on assessment.

    3. Data Gathering and Subjects

    Data was gathered economically by using questionnaires which contain five questions on assessment: the importance of assessment, where the students were asked to indicate how important assessment is to them and why; the importance of feedback, where they were asked to indicate how important teachers’ feedback is to them and why; and assessment categories, where they were asked to indicate what aspects of language study should be assessed. The questions used were a combination of both multiple-choice answers with a five-point scale and open-ended answers in which the respondents should write their reasons or could offer an alternative.

    The survey questionnaire was distributed to and collected (April - May 2014) from students who have been studying Korean as a Foreign Language for three to five semesters at an Australian university in Sydney. Completed questionnaires were collected from 71 students, of whom 51 were second year students and 20 were third year students. All of them were in their twenties and come from various ethnic backgrounds, with Chinese background forming a relatively larger proportion. The answers have been analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methods.

    4. Data Analysis and Results

       4.1. Perceived Importance of Assessment

    The first investigation was to examine the importance of assessment in students’ L2 (ie. Korean) learning as perceived by the students themselves. The students were asked to rate the importance of assessment by using the five-point scale (very important, important, not so important, not important at all, and don’t know). As shown in the Table 1 below, most of the students (95.8%) agreed that assessment is very important (38.0%) or important (57.8%) in their language learning. Those who were negative about assessment were very minimal and ignorable.


    ] Perceived Importance of Assessment


    Perceived Importance of Assessment

    When the word “assessment” is mentioned, the reaction of students is often one of discomfort, as they may associate assessment in terms of intensive study or additional work. Yet, the fact that the absolute majority of the students were very positive rather than negative or passive about assessment is very promising. Students agreed that assessment in their L2 learning is important and it seems that they want to be involved and engaged in the assessment process for their learning (Chappuis and Stiggins, 2002). Reasons given by students for why they regard assessment important in L2 learning is given and explained below.

       4.2. Why is Assessment Important?

    There are a number of reasons or purposes for an institution to conduct assessment in various courses including second or foreign language courses. These include, for example, for reflection on its curriculum goals, for feedback on students’ performance and for improvement in their knowledge and skills. The question is whether students in this study who indicated that assessment was important or very important had similar ideas about the functions of assessment. To find out why they regard assessment as important, students were provided with an open-ended question, asking to give their reasons. Students’ answers were categorised by similar statements and are presented below under each sub-heading in order of frequency.

    The reasons summarised above suggest that most students were well aware of the purpose and function of assessment in that they regarded it as part of their learning, as indications of their learning progress and as a tool to measure their knowledge of and skills in the language. For some others, assessment in language courses was perceived as a way of achieving good marks or measuring their memory skills. Interestingly, however, the number of students who perceived assessment as a way of improving their knowledge and skills, considered to be one of the key functions of assessment, were relatively low. It is not known whether students were unaware of the importance of assessment, whether such a function was really regarded as trivial or whether students’ intention of improvement was reflected in the first three answers.

    Below are some of the students' comments highlighting the function of assessment to encourage students’ learning, indicate their progress and measure their knowledge and skills.2)

    On the other hand, comments stating the role of obtaining (good) marks, improving their knowledge and skills, and measuring their memory skills include:

    Although two of the above reasons students gave (ie. to get (good) marks and measure their memory skills) may not be desirable functions of assessment, it may be true that some students may actually regard assessment in a language course simply as a way of obtaining good marks or as a matter of how well they memorise what they learnt. Including the function of assessment for improvement, which was not much mentioned, the three categories offer some points to consider how assessment strategies can be improved and how students can be better informed of the function of assessment.

       4.3. Perceived Importance of Feedback

    Students need guidance from teachers in learning any subject matter including second or foreign languages, and teacher feedback associated with particular assessment components plays a role in indicating what students need to improve and how, as well as what is important in their performance. It is assumed that students may find feedback important. To find out what importance is ascribed to teacher feedback, students were asked to indicate how important teacher feedback is by using the five-point scale. The result is shown in Table 2 below.


    ] Perceived Importance of Feedback


    Perceived Importance of Feedback

    Not surprisingly, nearly all of the students (97.2%) confirmed the value of diagnostic feedback from the teacher responding that it is important or very important in their learning process. This overwhelming response reconfirms that students greatly value the guidance of teachers and reinforces the need to give clear and ‘faithful’ feedback on the students’ work. Below, the reasons why they regard feedback important are presented.

       4.4. Why is Feedback Important?

    Teacher feedback typically helps students identify their strengths and weaknesses, to assist in improving their knowledge and skills and learn from their errors. Students in this present study gave a strong support for feedback and it is useful to be informed of their reasons. To find out why they see feedback important, students were provided with an open-ended question, asking to write their reasons. Four groups of reasons have emerged from the analysis. Students’ answers were categorised and are set out below under each sub-heading.

    Nearly half of the students (46.5%) responded that feedback is important because it helps them learn from their errors to improve their knowledge of and skills in the language (ie. Korean). From the responses it is clear that students regard teacher feedback as an indispensable tool that they use in order to learn and improve more. For others, feedback was a way of ensuring that what they say and write is correct and appropriate. It is for checking the certainty of whether they correctly apply what they have learnt. Still for some others, feedback was served to point out what their errors are or to indicate how well they had progressed. Some of the students’ reasons stating improvement, certainty, progress and error-pointer are presented below.3)

    “Because it will help us to improve more and to learn from mistakes.”

    The above statements suggest that while students have a strong tendency to see teacher feedback as a tool to improve on aspects or elements of weaknesses and learn more, they also use the opportunity for practical purposes – having teachers check their language use, point out errors and tell about their progress. This is encouraging in that students see the value of feedback from both broad and specific perspectives, which all come down to efforts to learn more and better. One particular point worth noting here is that when asked about the reasons why assessment is important, their answers were more along the lines of stimulating to study and indicating their progress, whereas when asked about the reasons why feedback was important, their answers were significantly more of helping them improve by learning from errors. These views on assessment and feedback are fair enough in that they reflect some key functions of assessment and feedback, respectively. We now turn to another topic – assessment categories below.

       4.5. Perceived assessment categories

    There are various types of assessment ranging from simple quizzes to long essays or portfolio projects. The present study is not intended to deal with these specific types of assessment as institutions use all different types of assessment that suit their curriculum goals and hence discussions of some particular types of assessment may be irrelevant. Instead, the study is interested in the categories or elements or aspects to be assessed in L2 courses, as they broadly cover any language assessment. Conventional language assessment includes various tasks measuring students’ skills (eg. speaking or writing skills) and their knowledge (eg. grammatical or cultural knowledge). The question here is what categories or aspects should be included in a L2 assessment. To understand this more deeply, students were asked to choose categories out of five options. They were allowed to choose more than one and were also given an open-ended option in which they could offer an alternative. Table 3 shows the results.


    ] Perceived Assessment Categories


    Perceived Assessment Categories

    There is no surprise in this result as it reflects typical practices that are expected in almost all language assessments. Both second and third year students agreed that their speaking, listening, reading and writing skills should take priority in language assessment, followed by their linguistic or grammatical knowledge. Their participation in class tasks or putting their effort into individual or group work are also expected to be counted but with less weighting. Socio-cultural understanding was least identified, which is understandable as it is not an essential component of the four macro-language skills and is usually dealt separately within relevant contextual courses in Australian institutions.

    Students were given an opportunity to write their own ideas, but out of seven statements given, six simply reiterated the categories already given, to emphasise spoken language skills (speaking and listening) rather than written language skills. Their comments include: “I think everyday conversational skills need to be emphasised more than reading/writing”; “More emphasis on speaking rather than writing”; “Greater emphasis should be placed on listening and speaking.” It seems that these comments reflect the particular context where students were studying in so it has limitations to generalise. Along with the descriptive statistics, however, it can be interpreted that students learning Korean as a Foreign Language (and probably any other foreign or second language for that matter) strongly support skill-based instructions as well as skill-based assessment.

    2)Other comments include: Encourages students’ learning: “Can help me constantly use it.”; “To practice and apply my knowledge in the assessment.”; “We practise the grammar, learn new vocabulary, etc.”; “It’s a good time to practice writing Korean.”; “To force me to study.”; “Makes me study, helps test what I know”; “I can apply what I learnt from lectures.”; “For regular revision, when [I] prepare for the assessment.” Indicates students’ progress: “Shows progress”; “It is because it can provide a chance for me to evaluate my learning process.”; “Know progress.”; “Because it’s a good way to view my progress without waiting for the final exam.”; “To assess my progress.” Measures students’ knowledge and skills: “To know you’ve learned something”; “To understand and make sure we know we have learnt.”; “To assess my learning.”; “For … application of the knowledge we learnt.”; “Because assessment proves how deep is engagement in the course.”  3)Other comments include: Helps students improve from their weakness: “We need feedback to improve our study.”; “So I know how to improve.”; “So I know what I’m doing wrong and how to improve.”; “I can see what I can improve on.” “To know where to improve.”; “It helps you see your mistakes & where you need to improve.”; “Need to know what I need to improve in.”; “To know how to improve and know what I need to fix.”; “It helps improving my language skills.”; “To know where we can improve.” Ensures the correctness of what students say/write: “Grammar is easily misused and vocabulary misunderstand.”; “To know what I did wrong.”; “To know if I did anything wrong.” Points out what students’ errors are: “So I can see what I need to fix.”; “To understand our mistakes.”; “[We] need to know where we are making mistakes.”; “If you make a mistake, you won’t know why…

    5. Summary and Implications in KFL Teaching

    The key findings in this survey study can be summarised as follows:

    In short, the findings show that students in this study are very positive about assessment, motivational about the teacher feedback, and very practical about what to assess. They regard assessment very important because it encourages, indicates and measures their language learning. They value teacher feedback very highly because it helps them improve and functions as a practical tool for their on-going learning strategies. In terms of assessment elements, they place a higher priority on practical skills with more emphasis on spoken language skills than any other aspects of language learning. These findings of positive and encouraging attitude offer a number of points for discussion in relation with their implications in planning and implementing assessment strategies in Korean as a foreign or second language programs.

    First, it is possible and even desirable for the program authority to review the curriculum and consider the active function of assessment where it contributes to students’ learning of Korean and of improving their knowledge and skills. In a conventional curriculum, the primary function of assessment, in many cases, is to provide students with diagnostic feedback on their performance in assessment tasks and accordingly marks and grades. It functions as a passive, teacher-centred process in which assessment is a by-product, or outcome of learning rather than an integral component of teaching and learning.

    The findings of this study clearly indicate that students regard assessment more than just a tool to assess learning and provide the teacher with assessment results. Students see assessment itself as an important opportunity for them to learn and improve their knowledge/skills beyond conventional perceptions. In this regard, the idea of ‘assessment for learning’ proposed by Chappuis and Stiggins (2002) is relevant. They suggest that “classroom assessments that involve students in the assessment process can improve learning” and explain that in assessment for learning “both teacher and student use classroom assessment information to modify teaching and learning activities.” (p. 40). Thus students are part of the assessment process and may be asked to help design tests or rubrics for scoring. Implementing such active function of assessment can help build students’ awareness of their progress in learning, evaluate their strengths and areas of further improvement and give their peers suggestions. Whether it is applicable or adoptable to KFL programs still needs to be examined against a number of factors such as flexibility of the language curriculum of a particular institution. Where possible, however, especially if students are positive about assessment as indicated in this study, it may be worthwhile to explore ways to design curriculum where students are not passive in the assessment process but are engaged in developing the assessment, determining what a good performance entails.

    Secondly, it may also be desirable to explore some new ways of assessing students such as performance and ‘personal-response’ assessments (Brown and Hudson, 1998). Students in this study prefer to place a high priority on the practical use of their language skills in language assessment and as pointed out by studies such as Ingram (2005) there is always a gap between language assessment and real-life language experience. One way to respond to the need and resolve the problem is to design assessment that focuses on the whole language or real language performance rather than elements within the language. In this regard, performance assessments are relevant and useful as they require students to complete ‘real-life’ and authentic tasks, often using the productive skills of speaking or writing. Examples of performance assessments include interviews, problem-solving tasks, pair-work tasks, role-plays and group discussions. Such assessments are advantageous in that they can “come close to authentic communication” and “provide more valid measures of students’ abilities to respond to real-life language tasks” (Brown and Hudson 1998: 662). How adoptable or applicable performance assessments are in KFL programs depends on a number of practical elements. In addition to extra time and efforts to produce and administer performance assessments, there are other elements for the program authority to consider, such as costs that may be incurred in developing and administering performance assessments, special equipment for audio- or videotapes to collect and subjectivity in the scoring process. Thus most of the performance assessments will require careful planning and responsible executive decisions at the managerial level.

    Personal-response assessments are another category worth noting in relation with the results of this study and to promote active learning through assessments. Personal-response assessments such as conferences, portfolios and self-and peer assessment are advantageous in that they provide personal or individualised assessment in an ongoing manner throughout the term or semester. While the program authority may wish to explore conference assessments (involving individual consultations with students focused on learning processes and strategies used in, for example, a particular project work) and self-assessments (involving students’ self-rating of their own L2 language ability through performance, comprehension or observation), the discussion here is focused on electronic portfolio assessments which are getting attention in this digital era (Cummins and Davesne, 2009).

    A portfolio has been used by photographers, models, graphic artists, and practitioners of similar vocations for decades to show their work and skills in a compact and convenient form such as folders, CDs, USB and other devices. In recent years portfolios have also been utilised in language education. Language teachers use portfolios to encourage their students to compile and display their work and thus in portfolio assessments, language students are asked to collect, select, describe, analyse and evaluate evidence to demonstrate how well they have achieved their objectives. Their work is usually assessed based on a description, presentation and analysis of their achievements, skills, efforts, abilities and contributions to a particular class. Portfolio assessments are advantageous in that they can strengthen students’ learning as reported in Cummins and Davesne (2009) and make students engage in ongoing reflection on what they accomplished and how they would develop future projects. What is more relevant is that electronic (or e-) portfolios have enormous advantages compared with paper-portfolios in that they are capable of storing a wide variety of media files and easy to organise or re-organise and also easy to interact internally (eg. checking the student’s progress towards goals) and externally (eg. feedback from the teacher). Though there are some disadvantages of using portfolio assessments in the “the issues of design decisions, logistics, interpretations, reliability and validity” (Brown and Hudson 1998: 665), merits seem to outweigh disadvantages. There is an identified need to utilise portfolios more than in the past and in this ever-evolving digital era it seems sensible to explore ways of utilising e-portfolio assessments which can accommodate the learner-centred curriculum and learner autonomy as well as skills making use of educational technology.

    Another aspect that the findings imply relates to teacher feedback, which is highly valued in this study. The findings reinforce that if assessment should function as a process of students’ active learning, teacher feedback is a critical part of students’ L2 learning and that it should be effective and clear to maximise students’ learning. Teachers are responsible for modelling what is important in terms of learning and assessment of performance. In that regard, teacher feedback should work as a means to support students’ learning and engage them with their learning, thereby improving their performance. From a technical perspective, the question such as whether or not corrective feedback is more effective when it is targeted to particular errors, whether implicit feedback or explicit feedback should be given or whether the feedback should be focused more on fluency than accuracy is another area of research, as suggested by Russell and Spada (2006). What is important here is that students need guidance and that they need clear, descriptive and well-illustrated feedback to encourage active learning which will be beneficial for the improvement of their knowledge and skills. In many language courses, however, assessment and its associated feedback usually remains at the level of providing students with their achievement simply in the form of marks and grades. KFL courses are no exception and this is particularly the case in a large course. It also highlights that in many ways students learn from their mistakes and teacher feedback should work to improve the weaknesses of students so that they do not continuously produce erroneous items which can become ‘fossilised’ unless an appropriate corrective or remedial action is taken (Shin, 2013).

    Last but not least, the findings suggest that students of Korean place a higher priority on their ability to use the language in assessment than any other elements of language learning, and this means that a high priority should be given to the development and practical use of communicative skills in the curriculum. What usually appears to be happening, however, is that communicative goals and skills are highlighted in the curriculum but they are not adequately translated to assessments. It is important to set practical educational goals and settings but more important for these to be reflected in assessment practices so that practical skills involving language usage can be developed.

    6. Conclusion

    This study has limitations but permits generalisations. The limitations mainly come from the facts that the data was collected from one particular institution and that the survey questionnaire was constructed with questions of a simplistic nature. Nevertheless, the study has provided some valuable insights into students’ perceptions of assessments, teacher feedback and areas to be assessed in a language course. From the findings it can be concluded that students of Korean who participated in this study value teacher feedback very highly and have a very positive attitude towards assessment that was perceived to be a part of their learning process. They also have a clear desire to have their practical skills assessed as a priority. It is suggested, therefore, that teacher feedback should be provided to students clearly and efficiently and in a way that helps improve student learning. It is also suggested that new assessment strategies should be explored to accommodate active learning, reflect practical skills and utilise digital technology where appropriate. Future research could be focused on effects of these new attempts on KFL learning and assessments.

    • 1. Bachman Lyle F. (2004) Statistical analysis for language assessment. google
    • 2. Bachman Lyle F., Palmer A. (2010) Language Assessment in Practice. google
    • 3. (2013) Multicompetence and second language assessment [Language Assessment Quarterly] Vol.10 P.219-235 google
    • 4. Brown James D. (1998) The alternatives in language assessment [TESOL Quarterly] Vol.32 P.653-675 google
    • 5. Chappuis Stephen, Stiggins Richard J (2002) Classroom assessment for learning [Educational Leadership] Vol.60 P.40-43 google
    • 6. Cummins Patricia W., Davesne Celine (2009) Using electronic portfolios for second language assessment [The Modern Language Journal] Vol.93 P.848-867 google
    • 7. Frank Jerrold (2012) The roles of assessment in language teaching [English Teaching Forum] P.3-32 google
    • 8. Guskey Thomas R. (2003) How Classroom Assessment Improve Learning [Educational Leadership] Vol.60 P.6-11 google
    • 9. Ingram David E. (2004) Towards more authenticity in language testing [Babel] Vol.39 P.16-24 google
    • 10. Ketabi Somaye, Ketabi Saeed (2014) Classroom and formative assessment in second/foreign language teaching and learning [Theory and Practice in Language Studies] Vol.4 P.435-440 google
    • 11. Lynch Brian K. (2012) Language assessment and program evaluation [TESOL Quarterly] Vol.35 P.603-605 google
    • 12. Phakiti Aek, Roever Carsten (2011) Current issues and trends in language assessment in Australia and New Zealand [Language Assessment Quarterly] Vol.8 P.103-107 google
    • 13. Russell Jane, Spada Nina (2006) The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar ? A meta-analysis of the research, in Norris, John M. and Lourdes Ortega (eds.), Synthesising Research on Language Learning and Teaching. P.133-163 google
    • 14. Shin Seong-Chul (2013) Remedial teaching on L2 Korean errors: A procedural strategy and students’ perceptions [Journal of Korean Language Education] Vol.24 P.127-154 google
    • 15. Stoynoff Stephen (2012) Looking backward and forward at classroom-based language assessment [ELT Journal] Vol.66 P.523-532 google
    OAK XML 통계
    이미지 / 테이블
    • [ <Table 1> ]  Perceived Importance of Assessment
      Perceived Importance of Assessment
    • [ <Table 2> ]  Perceived Importance of Feedback
      Perceived Importance of Feedback
    • [ <Table 3> ]  Perceived Assessment Categories
      Perceived Assessment Categories