EFL Learner Perceptions of Differentiated Speaking Assessment Tasks

英語教學 English Teaching & Learning
39.1 (Spring 2015): 29-68 DOI: 10.6330/ETL.2015.39.1.02
EFL Learner Perceptions of Differentiated

Speaking Assessment Tasks
Hui-Chuan Liaoa
Abstract
Although differentiated instruction and assessment correspond with
various motivation and learning theories, few studies have examined
the use of differentiated assessment in English as a foreign language
(EFL) contexts. Therefore, in this study, the manner in which EFL
learners perceived aspects of differentiated assessment regarding
validity, fairness, backwash, and ways to improve differentiated
assessment task construction was examined. The effects of group
learning orientation (GLO) and English proficiency on learner
perceptions were also investigated. Quantitative and qualitative data
were collected by administrating questionnaires to 300 university
sophomores and interviewing 6 participants. Descriptive analyses,
one-way and two-way analyses of variance, simple effect analyses,
and the constant comparative method were used for data analyses.
Overall positive perceptions were observed, thus supporting the
implementation of differentiated assessment to facilitate language
development in mixed-ability second language (L2) speaking classes.
Learner perceptions were found to be affected by the level of English
proficiency and GLO. Interaction effects between proficiency and GLO
were also observed. The findings are discussed in terms of pedagogical
recommendations for using differentiation in L2 contexts and
suggestions for conducting further research concerning differentiated
assessment.
Key Words: d
ifferentiated assessment, learner variance, speaking
assessment
a
Department of Applied Foreign Languages, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences. E-mail: hliao@kuas.edu.tw
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 29 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:44

39.1 (Spring 2015)
INTRODUCTION
Current educational trends reflect the change from homogeneity to
multiplicity in student populations. The increasing diversity of students
has been exemplified by distinct aptitudes, interests, learning styles and
strategies, cultures, experiences, and academic achievements (Chamot,
2012; Kim, 2012; McCoy & Ketterlin-Geller, 2004; Subban, 2006).
Chamot (2012) and Tomlinson (2002) have argued that classes should
be designed and implemented based on the diverse readiness levels and
learning profiles of students, and the strengths and limitations of each
learner should be acknowledged and accommodated.
However, despite the growing achievement gap in contemporary
classrooms and support from theories (Chamot, 2012; Krashen, 1985,
2003; Vygotsky, 1978), teachers in many educational contexts have not
modified their pedagogies according to current trends (Subban, 2006;
Tobin & McInnes, 2008; Valiande, Kyriakides, & Koutselini, 2011).
Similarly, although a growing achievement gap has been observed
in many English language classrooms in Taiwan, few corresponding
modifications have been made to restructure traditional classrooms to
accommodate the learning needs of each student, especially in large-
enrollment classes (Liao & Oescher, 2009).
In contemporary EFL classrooms, numerous instructors use the
teach-to-the-middle approach to meet the learning needs of most
students. Consequently, the learning profiles of higher- and lower-level
learners in a class are often neglected when instructional and assessment
decisions are made. Chamot (2012) argues that L2 teachers should not
assume that every student undergoes the same language development
processes. Although teaching all students in a class by using the same
lesson appears to be a realistic approach, not every student will be
as successful. The instruction and assessment involved may not be
sufficiently challenging to inspire higher-level learners, and may be too
demanding to sustain the learning interest and efforts of lower-level
students (Tomlinson, 2005a). To solve these problems, several educators
have advocated employing differentiation to address learner variances
and maximize learning.
Differentiation and Theoretical Framework

In an L2 context, differentiated instruction and assessment (DIA)
is based on an awareness of learner variances, including readiness,
interests, and learning profiles, and are guided by the principles of
varied tasks, learner choice, quality curriculum, flexible grouping,
and ongoing assessment (Blaz, 2013; Chamot, 2012; Quiocho &
Ulanoff, 2009; Tomlinson, 2010). Learning profiles include the learning
30
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 30 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:44

Liao: Differentiated Speaking Assessment
approaches of and processes required for individual learners, and are

molded by culture, learning styles and strategies, multiple intelligences,
and interests (Chamot, 2009, 2012; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006).
Learner choice does not mean allowing students to determine an
entire curriculum; instead, it signifies the opportunity for learners to
select from carefully designed alternative language tasks (Valiande &
Tarman, 2011) when teachers consider such task options to be beneficial
for students exhibiting diverse learning profiles (Chamot, 2012).
Quality curriculum refers to lesson plans and assessment tasks that
are responsive to learner variances, and is planned using a continually
reflective process of effective learning (Valiande et al., 2011).
Differentiated instruction and differentiated assessment are linked
(as DIA) because they cyclically sustain and inform each other (Quiocho
& Ulanoff, 2009). Learners are allowed to undergo various processes,
including activities and strategies, to master the course content; they are
also allowed to employ different modes of products (i.e., assessments) to
explore how they can exhibit their knowledge and skills most effectively
(Blaz, 2013; Quiocho & Ulanoff, 2009). Tomlinson (2005a) describes
multiple pathways of assessment as “support systems for learning” that
“enhance the likelihood of demonstrating what a student really knows,
understands, and can do” (p. 266). By addressing learner variances,
the processes of DIA are expected to prompt task value, self-efficacy,
and subsequent cognitive activities (Chamot, 2012). Figure 1 shows the
theoretical framework of differentiation overarching this study.
DIA is consistent with social cognitive theory (Vygotsky, 1978),
in which education is considered an ongoing process instead of a
product. A teacher acts as a mentor to assist learners in reaching full
development by providing opportunities for learners to work within
their zones of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) and apply
multiple intelligences in the linguistic, interpersonal, and logical
domains (Gardner, 2006, 2011). DIA is also aligned with the input
hypothesis (Krashen, 1985, 2003), which states that language learning
is optimal when L2 learners receive comprehensible input just above
their current language level. Whereas traditional instruction applies a
top-down and one-size-fits-all approach, DIA accommodates individual
variances and assists learners, regardless of readiness level, to pursue
personal achievement by developing motivation and using learning
strategies effectively (Chamot, 2012).
Effects of Differentiation
Ehrman and Oxford (1995) argue that learning is most effectively
achieved when learners are motivated and their needs are addressed;
31
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 31 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:44

39.1 (Spring 2015)
Building awareness Differentiation guided Differentiating in

of learner by these principles: these aspects:
variances: *Varied tasks *Content
*Readiness *Learner choice *Process
*Interests *Quality curriculum *Product/assessment
*Learning profiles *Flexible grouping *Learning
*Ongoing assessment environment
DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION
Self-efficacy Metacognitive &

informs Learning efficacy sustains
Task value Cognitive activities
DIFFERENTIATED ASSESSMENT
Self-monitoring
Selecting among Goal setting Self-regulation
Self-evaluation various difficulty Planning Multiple
levels
intelligences
Figure 1
Model of Differentiated Instruction and Assessment
Source: Blaz (2013); Chamot (2012); Liao and Shih (2013); Quiocho and Ulanoff
(2009); Tomlinson (2010).
Tomlinson (2005a) contends that instruction attuned to learner

knowledge and learner profiles produces optimal learning outcomes.
These perspectives are supported by empirical studies that have
examined the effects of differentiation. Santangelo and Tomlinson (2009)
examined the use of differentiated instruction in a gifted education
graduate course involving students with considerable variations
in learning profiles and readiness levels. The results indicated that
differentiated instruction appropriately challenged the learners and
enhanced their comprehension of course content and performance 1
levels.
The students reported a higher sense of task relevance and
32
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 32 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:44

meaning and increased learning engagement when they realized that

their personal profiles and styles were considered and supported by
the instructor. Reis, McCoach, Little, Muller, and Kaniskan (2011)
examined the effects of differentiated instruction on the first language
(L1) reading comprehension and oral reading fluency of elementary
students. Additionally, Gettinger and Stoiber (2012) examined the
effects of differentiation on the literacy performance of preschoolers.
Both studies demonstrated that children who received differentiated
instruction outperformed those who received traditional literacy
instruction. In Beecher and Sweeny (2008), the effects of differentiation
on learners of various proficiency levels were evidenced by positive
learner attitudes toward school, increased learning engagement, and
enhanced achievement in district and state assessments of reading
and writing. DeBaryshe, Gorecki, and Mishima-Young (2009) found
that differentiation improved vocabulary, emergent reading, alphabet
knowledge, print concepts, and phonological awareness for both high-
and low-achieving levels of preschoolers, particularly those who scored
in the bottom 5% on the pretest.
Although multiple positive effects of differentiation have been
observed, all of these studies have been implemented in U.S. L1
classrooms. Research on differentiation in L2 contexts has been scant
(Chamot, 2012).
Obstacles for Using Differentiation

Despite these theories and the aforementioned empirical studies
indicating the benefits of differentiation, it is not commonly practiced in
either L1 or L2 classrooms for two reasons. First, teachers are concerned
that they lack sufficient professional development for implementing
DIA (Edwards, Carr, & Siegel, 2006; Grafi-Sharabi, 2009). Insufficient
pre-service and in-service teacher training cause unfamiliarity, a
lack of skills, and, consequently, low self-efficacy in employing
the pedagogy (King-Shaver, 2008; Tomlinson, 2005b). Teachers are
typically unconfident in their knowledge and skills to adapt materials
and instructional strategies to address the needs of diverse learners
(Edwards et al., 2006; Grafi-Sharabi, 2009; Greenwood, Kamps, Terry, &
Linebarger, 2007; Tobin, 2005).
Second, teachers are hesitant because of perceived infeasibility.
Although they doubt the effects of whole-class pedagogy on learning
enhancement in heterogeneous classes, they believe that continuing
whole-class instruction rather than substantially changing the existing
curriculum is a more comfortable and simple practice (George, 2005).
Although instructors consider DIA to be responsive to the needs of
33
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 33 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:44

39.1 (Spring 2015)
diverse learners, they believe it is complicated and time consuming

(Chamot, 2012; George, 2005; Grafi-Sharabi, 2009; King-Shaver, 2008).
Learner-Perceived Fairness and Backwash

Another potential obstacle to implementing differentiated
instruction and assessment is assessment fairness. When individual
differences are considered, the possibility of an assessment being
perceived as unfair increases (Blaz, 2008). Fairness is regarded by
EFL students as one of the most critical concerns in the language
classroom (Brosh, 1996; Lee, 2010; Park & Lee, 2006). Existing empirical
studies have indicated the influence of perceived fairness on learning
motivation and subsequent learning behaviors. For example, positive
perceptions of fairness in the classroom were observed to enhance
motivation and affective learning in Chory-Assad (2002). When
students perceived course policies and practices as fair, they were more
enthusiastic in engaging in class learning activities and subsequently
used what they had learned beyond the course context.
By contrast, the demotivating effects of perceived unfairness have
been found to be detrimental to both motivation and learning. In Horan,
Chory, and Goodboy (2010), perceived unfairness regarding class
policies, teacher behaviors, and assessment practices caused students to
experience negative emotions including dissent, anger, and frustration;
the students also exhibited behavioral reactions, including withdrawal
from learning. In Nesbit and Burton (2006), students who demonstrated
negative emotional and behavioral responses to unfairness, particularly
those who also received low performance feedback, were subsequently
discovered to have low satisfaction and self-efficacy in learning.
These findings correspond with Weiner’s (2000) attribution theory,
which describes the relationship between learner attribution of past
successes and failures and subsequent learning motivation. When
students regard unfairness as the cause of their failure, they consider
this cause to be constant and uncontrollable, and they feel powerless
to change such a circumstance. This often causes demotivation and
unsuccessful learning.
From the Prior to the Current Study

Among the limited studies addressing the implementation of
differentiated assessment in L2 contexts, the researcher and her
colleague previously developed differentiated tasks and analyzed
learner perceptions of these tasks in an exploratory study that involved
28 participants (Liao & Shih, 2013). Although the results of the study
indicated positive learner attitudes toward the assessment tasks, the
34
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 34 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:45

participants identified several areas of the differentiated assessment that

required improvement, including task descriptions, specification of the
performance length, and assessment criteria.
Based on these findings, the researcher further developed the
speaking assessment tasks in the current study and scrutinized aspects
of the assessment (i.e., validity, fairness, and backwash). As Chamot
(2012) and Tomlinson (2002) have asserted, considering the diverse
readiness levels of learners is crucial in effective teaching and learning;
therefore, English proficiency was used in this study as an analytic
factor in further examining the perceptions of learners. Because
speaking is an act of social communication (Halliday, 1978; Vygotsky,
1987), whether the level of group learning orientation (GLO) affected
the perceptions of differentiated assessment warranted investigation.
Therefore, GLO was used as a second learner variance factor for
analyzing student perceptions. In addition, a larger sample size (i.e., 300
vs. 28) was used to enhance the generalizability of the results.
The following research questions were posed:
(1) How do learners perceive the differentiated assessment regarding its
validity, fairness, and backwash?
(2) Do the perceptions vary because of GLO and proficiency levels?
(3) Is there an interaction effect of GLO and language proficiency level
on learner perceptions? If so, what is the cause of the interaction?
(4) How can the differentiated assessment task construction be
improved?
METHODOLOGY
This study comprised two phases. The first involved developing
differentiated assessment tasks; the second involved developing
instruments and collecting data.
A Recursive and Nonlinear Differentiated Assessment

Development Process
The assessment tasks described in Appendices A and B were
designed to solicit learner perceptions of differentiated assessment.
These tasks were presented to the participants before a perception
questionnaire was administered. The following paragraphs illustrate
how these tasks were developed. The target users of the tasks were
mixed-ability (elementary to upper-intermediate levels) students
enrolled in a university sophomore EFL speaking course. The course
35
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 35 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:45

39.1 (Spring 2015)
objective was to improve student communication skills by providing

opportunities for students to practice conversations in real-life situations
and use useful expressions from the speaking curriculum based on the
World Link Video Course Level 3 workbook (Stempleski, 2006) and VOA
Idiom Dictionary (n.d.).
At the onset of this study, the differentiated assessment tasks
developed in previous research were examined and revised using
learner feedback from Liao and Shih (2013). Two experienced speaking
instructors were then consulted to obtain critical comments and
ensure the content validity of the revised speaking assessment. The
first instructor was a Taiwanese teacher who had lived in Canada for
12 years before returning to Taiwan to teach English. She received
her Ph.D. in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages and
had taught English for 13 years and English speaking for 10 years.
The second instructor was an English teacher from the United States,
who had taught English speaking in Japan and Taiwan for 10 years.
The revised tasks were subsequently presented to eight students in a
graduate course on language testing and assessment to obtain feedback.
These graduate students contributed to improving the assessment by
considering validity and the appropriateness of difficulty levels from
the perspectives of both language learners and novice researchers.
During the revision process, seven undergraduate students who
possessed similar English proficiency levels to that of the target users of
the assessment participated in several mini-trials to ensure that the task
descriptions were unambiguous and demonstrated face validity. Figure
2 illustrates the recursive and nonlinear revision cycles.
The Differentiated Assessment Tasks

Following the recursive revision process, various changes were
made to enhance the comprehensibility of the differentiated assessment
tasks. As shown in Appendix A, the maximal grade a student could
possibly earn at each difficulty level, the required group size, the
schedule for students to determine their decisions regarding group
formation and task-level selection, and the required length of the
assessment performance were clearly stated in the revised edition.
Key information in the task descriptions was highlighted, and the task
description tables were presented in a manner that visually assisted
learners in quickly distinguishing the differences among the three task
levels. Although the results of the previous study (Liao & Shih, 2013)
suggested that examples, diagrams, and scoring rubrics should be
incorporated in the task descriptions, adding this information perplexed
the participants in the mini-trials. Therefore, after consulting with the
36
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 36 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:45

Figure 2
Recursion and Nonlinearity of the Revision Process
experts, this information was presented orally to the students through a

PowerPoint presentation (see Appendix B).
Continual versus one-shot assessments. Although differentiated
assessment can be used either as a formative or summative assessment,
the core goal of differentiated assessment is to provide learners
with the greatest opportunity to enhance metacognition (Qingquan,
Chatupote, & Teo, 2008) and demonstrate their highest personal level
of achievement instead of being used as a one-shot measurement of the
end result (Alberta Education, 2010). Therefore, the formative feature
was considered when the assessment was developed. Instead of being
used only once as the final evaluation, the differentiated assessment
was used three times. If students realized that the midterm task-level
selection was inappropriate, they could change the difficulty level of
the final evaluation and optional assessment. This design provided
opportunities for students to use metacognition (A. D. Cohen, 2000;
Oxford, 1990) and subsequently enhance learning in both the pre-task
and post-task phases.
Differentiated requirements and scores. According to previous
research, task difficulty is affected by the level of complexity (i.e., the
number of online operations and transformation of materials that are
required; Skehan, 1998) and the linguistic, cognitive, and discoursal
requirements embedded in a task (Brown & Yule, 1983). Therefore,
37
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 37 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:46

39.1 (Spring 2015)
the differentiated assessment tasks in this study varied in terms of the

number of expressions required, whether the language output should
fit a specific context, and the duration of utterances. Considering the
course objective on improving real-time speaking competence, limited
or no preparation time was given to students before they performed
the assessment tasks. In addition, because of the differentiated nature
of the tasks, variation in the maximal scores was warranted. Using the
recursive revision process illustrated in Figure 2, feedback from the
mini-trial participants and ELT experts was considered and the maximal
scores of the leveled tasks were determined. Table 1 summarizes the
requirements and maximal scores of the leveled tasks.
Task characteristics. Before finalizing the task design, the tasks
were examined using Fulcher’s (2003) task characteristics framework
for speaking assessments. The differentiated tasks were determined to
exhibit the characteristics described in Table 2.
Rating scales. When the rating scales were developed, the
advantages and disadvantages of theory-driven analytic scales (Luoma,
2004) and behavioral rating scales (Brindley, 1998) were considered.
In addition to the constructs of language, body language, and content
based on the framework developed by Higgs and Clifford (1982), a
scenario was presented to the learners selecting the advanced-level role-
play assessment, and learner performance was rated according to the
specific context of language use.
In summary, the differentiated assessment was a set of three-tiered
oral assessments comprising three evaluation components, which was
used in the midterm and final assessments and varied in optionality.
Table 1
Summary of the Differentiated Assessment Tasks
Fixed Preparation Maximal
Level Content Duration
Scenario Time Scores
Role Play (Midterm and Final, Mandatory)
Basic 8 expressions No 30 min n/a 80
Intermediate 11 expressions No 30 min n/a 90
Advanced 11 expressions Yes 30 min n/a 100
Topic Talk (Final, Optional)
Basic 1 of 3 topics n/a none 1 min 3
Intermediate 1 of 3 topics n/a none 1.5 min 5
Advanced 1 of 3 topics n/a none 2 min 8
38
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 38 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:46

Table 2
Task Characteristics of the Differentiated Speaking Tasks
Dimensions Task Characteristics
Task Orientation Guided: Although the outcomes are guided by the
rubrics, learners can flexibly determine how to
react to the input.
Interactional Relationship Interactional: Two-way
Goal Orientation Convergent between the speakers in the same team
Interlocutor Status No interlocutor
Topics Variable
Situations Variable
The purpose of the optional task was to award extra points to students
if they were willing to exert additional effort.
Instruments
Three instruments were used to address the research questions.
First, a five-construct, 23-item differentiated speaking assessment
learner-perception questionnaire (DSALQ, see Appendix C) was
developed on the basis of a four-construct, 14-item questionnaire in
Liao and Shih (2013) to measure learner perceptions of differentiated
assessment. The DSALQ consists of eighteen 5-point Likert-scaled
items constituting the constructs of validity (four items), fairness (five
items), backwash (three items), and clarity (six items); four open-
ended questions constituting the constructs of clarity (one item) and
task modifications (three items); and a reflection section in which
respondents evaluate the assessment. Table 3 lists the constructs
and characteristics (Likert scaling vs. open-ended questions) of the
questionnaire items. The reverse-coded items are marked with an
asterisk (*) in the table.
Second, a group learning orientation questionnaire (GLOQ, see
Appendix D) was developed on the basis of the Perceptual Learning
Style Preference Questionnaire (Reid, 1998).The GLOQ contains eight
5-point Likert-scaled questionnaire items, all gauging a single construct,
namely group learning orientation. Items 4, 6, 7, and 8 are reverse
coded. These two questionnaires were translated into Chinese by the
researcher, followed by expert reviews to ensure accuracy of meaning.
The Chinese versions were used to collect data to ensure that the
student participants understood the items. Third, the Test of English for
International Communication (TOEIC) was used to measure English
39
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 39 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:46

39.1 (Spring 2015)
proficiency. The reliability of these instruments is reported in the

Results section.
To address the research questions regarding the effects of learner
variances, the participants were classified into three levels of GLO and
proficiency according to the standards listed in Table 4. The TOEIC
score ranges and their corresponding proficiency levels are listed
according to the guidelines of the Educational Testing Service (2007)
and the Council of Europe (2012).
Participants
The participants were 300 sophomore English majors from six
intact English speaking classes offered by various universities in
Table 3
DSALQ Constructs and Question Items
Construct Likert-Scaled Items Open-Ended Items
Validity 3, 6, 11, 17
Fairness 1, 7, 9, 12, 16
Backwash 4, 8, 14*
Clarity 2*, 5*, 10*, 13, 15*, 18 19
Task Modification 20, 21, 22
(Reflection) 23
Number of Items 18 5
Total Number of Items 23
Table 4
Score Interpretation of GLO and Language Proficiency Levels
Score Score Interpretation
GLOQ Score
1.00-2.49 Weak GLO level (W-GLO)
2.50-3.49 Mild GLO level (M-GLO)
3.50-5.00 Strong GLO level (S-GLO)
TOEIC Score
225-549 A2 (Elementary) proficiency level
550-784 B1 (Intermediate) proficiency level
785-945 B2 (Upper Intermediate) proficiency level
40
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 40 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:46

Taiwan. The TOEIC scores of the participants ranged from 500 to 910,
with 11.1%, 71.5%, and 17.4% of the participants at the A2, B1, and B2
levels, respectively. The varying language performance levels supported
the rationale for implementing differentiated assessment to maximize
learning.
Data Collection and Analysis

The three instruments and six individual interviews were
administered in two consecutive weeks. In the first week, the student
participants were provided a hard copy of the differentiated assessment
task descriptions (Appendix A) and a PowerPoint presentation of the
scoring rubrics (Appendix B). After understanding the requirements
and grading of the differentiated assessment tasks by reading the
information in the appendices and by listening to explanations provided
by the instructor, the participants were administered the DSALQ.
In the subsequent week, they completed the GLOQ and TOEIC, and
were interviewed. The interview data were translated from Chinese to
English by the researcher and reviewed by two experts to ensure that
the translation was accurate. Research Questions 1 to 3 were addressed
using descriptive analyses, one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
and subsequent post hoc tests, and two-way ANOVAs and subsequent
simple effect analyses. Question 4 was addressed using the open and
axial coding of the constant comparative method (L. Cohen, Manion, &
Morrison, 2007) to organize and interpret qualitative data. In addition,
the reflection item of the DSALQ and the interview data were analyzed
using the constant comparative method to identify any unexpected
themes.
RESULTS
Reliability of the Instruments
All three instruments exhibited satisfactory reliability (Table 5)
based on the criteria in DeVellis (2012): A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
between .70 and .80 is respectable; between .80 and .90 is very good; and
above .90 is excellent.
Perceived Fairness, Validity, and Backwash

Answering Research Question 1 involved examining learner
perceptions of the differentiated assessment by using the DSALQ
questionnaire. Table 5 indicates an overall positive learner attitude
toward the assessment validity, fairness, and backwash.
41
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 41 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:46

39.1 (Spring 2015)
Effects of Learner Variances on Learner Perceptions

Addressing Research Question 2 involved investigating whether
the learner perceptions of validity, fairness, and backwash varied
because of the GLO and proficiency level.
Validity. Two ANOVAs were conducted to examine the effects of
GLO and proficiency on perceived validity. The first ANOVA found
a significant effect (F(2, 297) = 16.045, p = .000) among the three levels
of GLO. The effect size was medium to large (η2 = .10) based on the
criteria established by J. Cohen (1988) and S. B. Green, Salkind, and
Akey (2000, p. 190). Because of the unequal sample sizes among the
three GLO levels, the Dunnett’s C procedure, which does not require
the population variances to be equal (Hochberg & Tamhane, 1987), was
used for conducting post hoc multiple comparison tests. As presented
in Table 6, the perceptions of the W-GLO subgroup were significantly
lower than those of the M-GLO and S-GLO subgroups.
Table 5
Reliability and Descriptive Statistics of the Scales
Subscale N Mean SD Reliability
GLOQ 300 3.38 .59 .88
TOEIC 288 678.78 98.05 .89
DSALQ
Validity 300 3.88 .60 .81
Fairness 300 3.66 .64 .74
Backwash 279 3.80 .58 .71
Clarity 300 3.45 .62 .81
Overall Satisfaction 279 3.70 .50 .90
Table 6
Differences in Perceived Validity Among GLO Subgroups
Mean 95% CI
Comparisons Std. Error
Difference Lower Bound Upper Bound
W-GLO vs. M-GLO -.56* .21 -1.08 -.05
W-GLO vs. S-GLO -.59* .20 -1.10 -.08
M-GLO vs. S-GLO -.03 .05 -.15 -.10
*p < .05.
42
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 42 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:47

The second ANOVA found a significant effect (F(2, 285) = 6.919,

p = .001) among the three proficiency subgroups. The effect size was
small to medium (η2 = .05). Because of the unequal sample sizes among
the proficiency subgroups, the Dunnett’s C procedure was selected for
conducting post hoc tests. According to the results in Table 7, the A2
subgroup reported significantly more positive perceptions than the B1
and B2 subgroups did.
Fairness. Two ANOVAs were performed to examine the effects of
GLO and proficiency on perceived fairness. No significant difference
among the three GLO subgroups (F(2, 297) = 1.673, p = .189) or the
three proficiency subgroups (F(2, 285) = 2.738, p = .066) was observed,
indicating that GLO and proficiency levels did not influence perceptions
of the fairness of the differentiated assessment.
The obtained learner reflections support these findings, albeit for
different reasons. For example, one interviewee, Stan (A2, M-GLO),
considered fairness as having opportunities to demonstrate his full
potential at the assessment level of his choice.
When I was asked to perform a language task, I usually did a miserable

job. It was unfair because I was initially assigned a task very inappropriate
for my pitiable English level, and my failure was predetermined. This
assessment, however, allows me to select task levels. I’d like to choose the
intermediate level because it’s challenging but not impossible. Although
earning the full 90 points isn’t likely for me, it’s fair because I can challenge
myself to attempt for as much of the 90 points as possible.
Sharon, another interviewee with higher English proficiency and strong

group learning orientation (B2, S-GLO), shared a similar view:
Since my early teens I’ve been very interested in English and spent much
time learning English through films and songs. It turned out that my
proficiency is higher than my peers and the classroom assessments are
Table 7
Differences in Perceived Validity Among Proficiency Subgroups
Mean Std. 95% CI
Comparisons
Difference Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
A2 vs. B1 .37* .09 .13 .60
A2 vs. B2 .49* .14 .16 .82
B1 vs. B2 .12 .11 -.15 .39
*p < .05.
43
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 43 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:47

39.1 (Spring 2015)
usually unchallenging and boring.... This speaking assessment gives students

like me a meaning to continue learning. We should not be penalized with
boring assessments. It is fair only if our proficiency levels and needs are also
considered.
Another participant, Lulu (B1, M-GLO), considered the differentiated

assessment to be fair because she believed the outcome would reflect
the efforts of students. “The more ploughing and weeding,” stated Lulu,
“the better the crop. This assessment requires different levels of effort
for different maximum scores. It’s fair and square.” Lulu selected the
advanced-level tasks for both the mandatory and optional assessments
“to earn as high a score as possible.”
Backwash. Two ANOVAs were used to examine the effects of GLO
and proficiency on perceived backwash. A significant effect (F(2, 276) =
10.545, p = .000) was found in the first ANOVA. The effect size was
medium (η2 = .07). Because of the unequal sample sizes among the GLO
levels, the Dunnett’s C procedure was used for conducting post hoc
tests. According to the results in Table 8, the W-GLO subgroup reported
significantly less positive perceptions of backwash than the M-GLO and
S-GLO subgroups did.
The second ANOVA revealed a significant difference (F(2, 264) =
22.791, p = .000) among the three proficiency subgroups. The effect
size was large (η2 = .15). Because of the unequal sample sizes among
the three proficiency groups, the Dunnett’s C procedure was used for
conducting post hoc tests. The results in Table 9 indicate that the A2
subgroup reported significantly more positive perceptions than the B1
and B2 subgroups did.
Interaction Effects of Proficiency and GLO

To address Research Question 3, the interaction effects of
proficiency and GLO on learner perceptions of validity, fairness, and
backwash were examined using two-way ANOVAs with the level
Table 8
Differences in Perceived Backwash Among GLO Subgroups
Mean Std. 95% CI
Comparisons
W-GLO vs. M-GLO -.49* .15 -.85 -.13
W-GLO vs. S-GLO -.37* .14 -.73 -.02
M-GLO vs. S-GLO .12 .07 -.04 .28
*p < .05.
44
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 44 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:47

Table 9
Differences in Perceived Backwash Among Proficiency Subgroups
Mean Std. 95% CI
Comparisons
A2 vs. B1 .63* .13 .31 .94
A2 vs. B2 .86* .20 .36 1.36
B1 vs. B2 .23 .16 -.18 .64
*p < .05.
of GLO (weak, mild, strong) and English proficiency (A2, B1, B2) as
the independent variables. Results on validity (F(3, 280) = 1.223, p =
.302) and fairness (F(3, 280) = 1.570, p = .197) indicated no significant
interaction, suggesting that the effect of proficiency on learner
perceptions of validity and fairness did not depend on which GLO level
was considered, and vice versa.
By contrast, a significant interaction on backwash was observed
between the level of proficiency and GLO (F(3, 259) = 8.590, p = .000).
The observed power was excellent at .99, and the effect size was medium
to large (η2 = .09) based on the criteria of Stevens (1999). This statistically
significant interaction indicated that the effect of language proficiency
level on backwash depended on which GLO level was considered. To
examine where the significant proficiency by GLO effect on backwash
occurred, three simple effect analyses were conducted: one compared
the two GLO group means within the A2 proficiency subgroup, another
compared the three GLO means within the B1 subgroup, and the other
compared the three GLO means within the B2 subgroup. The simple
effect analyses revealed that the level of GLO influenced the perceptions
of backwash of the A2 (F(1, 259) = 8.615, p = .004) and B2 students (F(2,
259) = 12.950, p = .000) but not the B1 students (F(2, 259) = .020, p =
.981). B1 student perceptions of backwash were not affected by their
level of GLO, whereas A2 and B2 learner perceptions of backwash were
influenced by the level of GLO. Despite the significant results at both
the A2 and B2 levels, the interaction plot illustrated in Figure 3 indicates
that B2 students with weak GLO were the only learner subgroup
that neutrally rather than positively perceived the backwash of the
differentiated assessment.
Improving the Differentiated Assessment

Research Question 4 was addressed by using quantitative and
qualitative data collected from the DSALQ.
45
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 45 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:47

39.1 (Spring 2015)
Clarity. The descriptive statistics in Table 5 indicate a reserved

learner attitude toward the clarity level of the assessment descriptions.
Table 10 lists the suggestions participants offered for enhancing the
differentiated assessment clarity. The first four comments in the table
are about comprehensibility, and the last three are on scoring criteria.
Figure 3
Interaction Plot for the Effect of Proficiency and GLO on Backwash
Table 10
Written Comments on Enhancing the Assessment Description Clarity
Comments n
a. Use examples/graph charts to make the assessment descriptions easier 7
to understand.
b. Make the assessment descriptions bilingual (i.e., English and Chinese). 7
c. Continue to supplement the written descriptions with teacher 4
explanations and an in-class Q & A session.
d. Highlight keywords that distinguish task levels. 3
e. Include scoring rubrics that match the performance levels and scores. 5
f. Include rubrics that detail the sub-skills assessed. 4
g. Use mathematic formulas to show how the scores are calculated. 3
46
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 46 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:49

Leveled scores. Participant opinions regarding the maximal scores

of each differentiated assessment level varied. Whereas 64% (193) of the
participants indicated that no change was required, 36% (107) suggested
modifications. Table 11 presents these suggestions and respective
rationales.
Table 11
Written Comments on Maximal Score Adjustments
Comments n Coding
Both Midterm and Final Role Play (55%)
A.Increase the basic-level maximal score to motivate those
29 B+
who have limited proficiency.
B. Decrease the basic-level maximal score to make
12 B-
distinctions among the performance levels.
C. Decrease the basic-level maximal score to encourage self-
11 B-
challenge by making the score unappealing.
D.Increase the basic-level but decrease the advanced-level
maximal score to decrease the differences among the 4 B+/A-
maximal scores at varying levels.
E. Decrease the advanced-level maximal score to motivate
students to try performing the bonus task for a higher 3 A-
semester grade.
Midterm Role Play Only (10%)
F. Decrease advanced-level maximal score to motivate
students to work hard on the final for a higher semester 4 A-
grade.
G.Decrease the maximal scores at all levels to make students
work harder because they have more time to prepare for 4 E-
the midterm assessment.
H.Increase the basic-level maximal score to enhance the
3 B+
confidence level of those who have limited proficiency.
Final Role Play Only (3%)
I. Increase the basic- and intermediate-level maximal scores
to provide a second chance for the students who did not 3 B+/I+
perform satisfactorily on the midterm.
(continued)
47
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 47 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:49

39.1 (Spring 2015)
Table 11
Written Comments on Maximal Score Adjustments (continued)
Comments n Coding
Bonus Topic Talk Only (32%)
J. Increase the maximal scores at all levels to motivate
10 E+
students to perform the bonus task.
K. Increase the basic- and intermediate-level maximal
scores because they are currently too low to motivate 8 B+/I+
students to perform the bonus task.
L. Adjust the maximal scores at all levels to make the
6 E
intervals among the three scores equal.
M. Increase the advanced-level maximal score to make
5 A+
distinctions among the performance levels.
N. Increase the advanced-level maximal score to enhance
5 A+
the motivation of advanced learners.
Note. B, I, and A denote the basic, intermediate, and advanced task levels,
respectively; E denotes every level; “+” and “-” indicate the directions for
score adjustment.
Pre-assessment simulations. Twenty-one participants (7%) suggested

implementing pre-assessment activities in two ways for various reasons.
The first type of activity involved implementing pre-assessment
exercises to familiarize the students with the assessment tasks presented
at various levels. The second type of activity entailed administering
a pre-assessment measure, for which the students could apply the
results in choosing an appropriate task level for the formal speaking
assessments.
Standardization versus differentiation. Nineteen participants
(6% of the total sample, all at the intermediate language proficiency
level) preferred standardized testing over differentiated assessment
because they perceived standardized tests to be simple and fair. Several
participants preferred standardized testing because they were not
required to determine the appropriate task level or find a partner with
the same achievement goal; other participants believed that if every
student performed the same task, the evaluation outcome would be fair.
Other suggestions. Five participants (2%) desired an extended
preparation time. Several participants at various language proficiency
levels wanted an extension for all task levels, and other participants at
the upper-intermediate language level believed that only the advanced
level required an extension because the advanced-level tasks were more
48
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 48 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:49

demanding. Finally, three participants (1%, all at the upper-intermediate

proficiency level) suggested that the advanced-level tasks should be
more challenging to maximize learning.
DISCUSSION
Perceived Fairness, Validity, and Backwash
The overall learner satisfaction with the differentiated assessment
was affirmative. The participants typically considered the differentiated
assessment as a fair practice that reflected speaking course objectives
and positively affected learning. These positive learner perceptions
are pivotal for classroom assessment implementation because of their
consequent effects. Backwash is “the extent to which the introduction
and use of a test influences language... learners to do things... that
promote or inhibit language learning” (Messick, 1996, p. 241). Learners
who do not perceive beneficial backwash when an assessment is
introduced may attribute low task value to the assessment task. Lacking
task value subsequently causes students to exert little effort in learning
(Dornyei, 2001). Therefore, instructors should consider beneficial
backwash when constructing an assessment. In addition, relevant
literature indicates that EFL learners consider fairness to be a vital
classroom concern (Lee, 2010; Park & Lee, 2006). Previous studies have
also demonstrated the effects of the beneficial backwash of perceived
fairness (Chory-Assad, 2002) and the harmful backwash of perceived
unfairness (Horan et al., 2010; Nesbit & Burton, 2006) on motivation,
subsequent learning behaviors, and outcomes. Similarly, learner
perceptions of validity (i.e., face validity) are associated with backwash.
Although face validity cannot substitute the empirical validation of an
assessment, it establishes learner-perceived credibility and may produce
a beneficial backwash effect on language learning (P. S. Green, 1987).
Therefore, the positive learner perceptions of validity, fairness, and
backwash demonstrated in this study are positive indicators of using
the differentiated assessment in a mixed-level L2 speaking class.
Effects of Learner Variances on Perceived Fairness

As shown in Table 12, which summarizes the learner variance
effects on the perceptions of the differentiated assessment, the learner
perceptions of fairness were not affected by the level of GLO or English
proficiency. These results and the positive mean score for fairness in
Table 5 indicate that the assessment was perceived fair by learners of
various levels of GLO and language proficiency. According to Blaz
(2008, 2013), pre-assessment illustrations of assessment and grading
49
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 49 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:49

39.1 (Spring 2015)
policies and the use of multiple assessments instead of only one measure
can foster perception of the assessment as fair. The speaking assessment
tasks in this study followed both principles. This likely contributed to
the positive perceptions of assessment fairness.
Although positive perceptions of fairness were observed in all
GLO and language proficiency subgroups, the interview data regarding
fairness presented in the Effects of Learner Variances on Learner
Perceptions subsection of the Results section indicates that learner
interpretations of fairness differed. For example, Sharon (B2, S-GLO)
and Stan (A2, M-GLO) considered fairness as the opportunity for
learners at higher and lower proficiency levels to demonstrate acquired
English language skills (Alberta Education, 2010) within their zones of
proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) and the “i + 1” range (Krashen,
1985, 2003). However, the statement provided by Lulu (B1, M-GLO)
shows her definition of fairness based on her attribution of success and
failure to personal efforts (Weiner, 2000).
Gipps and Stobart (2009) argue that fairness should be examined
considering different learning profiles within a social context. The
Table 12
Summary of Learner Variance Effects on the Perceptions of Differentiated
Assessment
Independent Variables Dependent Variables Significance
Main Effects
GLO Validity Yes (W-GLO < M-GLO/S-GLO)
Fairness No
Backwash Yes (W-GLO < M-GLO/S-GLO)
Proficiency Validity Yes (B1/B2 < A2)
Fairness No
Backwash Yes (B1/B2 < A2)
Interaction Effects Simple Effects
Proficiency & GLO Validity No
Fairness No
Backwash Yes A2 S-GLO < A2 M-GLO
B1 W-/M-/S-GLO
B2 W- < M- < S-GLO
Note. “<” indicates that the learners listed on the left side of the symbol reported
significantly less positive perceptions than did the learners on the right; “/”
denotes no significant difference between the learners on both sides.
50
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 50 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:49

participants in the current study perceived the assessment to be a fair

practice for different reasons because of their various learning profiles.
Developing the differentiated assessment in this study was motivated
by a concern to serve the learning needs of various types of learners.
Positively perceived fairness pertaining to learner variances is a positive
indication that this purpose is being achieved.
Effects of Learner Variances on Perceived Validity and

Backwash
Table 12 indicates that the learner perceptions of validity and
backwash were both influenced by the level of GLO and English
proficiency. Examining the right column reveals that the W-GLO
learners reported statistically less positive perceptions of validity and
backwash than the M-GLO and S-GLO learners did. These findings
can be ascribed to the assessment design. Among the three assessment
tasks, the two compulsory tasks required group work and the elective
task required individual work. This design likely appeals more to group
learners than to individual learners. As Reid (1998) describes, group
learners complete work most successfully when working collaboratively,
whereas individual learners learn most effectively alone. Although oral
communication is essentially used in social encounters (Halliday, 1978;
Vygotsky, 1987), concurrently achieving the communicative purpose
and effectively meeting the needs of students with distinct learning
styles should be explored when designing future assessments.
Table 12 also indicates that the A2 learners more positively
perceived validity and backwash than the B1 and B2 learners did. Thus
the A2 learners are likely to benefit the most from the implementation
of differentiated assessment because learner perceptions of beneficial
assessment backwash tend to promote task value and consequently
effort making (Dornyei, 2001), and perceptions of assessment validity
may influence subsequent learning in a positive way (P. S. Green, 1987).
Interaction Effects of Proficiency and GLO on Backwash

The interaction effects between language proficiency and GLO
were also investigated. The effect of proficiency level on backwash was
observed to depend on the level of GLO considered. The interaction
plot illustrated in Figure 3 reveals that B1 learner perceptions of
backwash were positive and not affected by GLO. Conversely, the
perceptions of the A2 and B2 learners were affected by GLO. However,
despite the significant difference between the M-GLO and the S-GLO
A2 learners, both of the subgroups perceived beneficial backwash of
the differentiated assessment. In contrast, whereas the M-GLO and
51
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 51 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:49

39.1 (Spring 2015)
S-GLO B2 learners considered the assessment facilitative to subsequent

learning, neutral attitudes were observed in the W-GLO B2 learners.
According to these findings, using differentiated assessment can
provide beneficial backwash to learners exhibiting various combinations
of language proficiency and GLO levels, except for learners who have a
higher level of English mastery (i.e., B2) and do not exhibit the tendency
to work with others. In addition to developing an assessment that
addresses the needs of students with diverse learning styles, Chamot
(2012) suggests integrating strategy teaching into language instruction.
Although learning styles are generally resilient to change, Chamot
argues that it is vital for L2 students to understand how group work can
benefit language development and how to collaborate successfully.
Furthermore, differentiated assessment and differentiated
instruction inform and sustain each other (Quiocho & Ulanoff, 2009).
The knowledge of how leaner variances affect student perceptions of a
differentiated assessment allows EFL instructors to develop responsive
and effective assessment tasks that address learner needs and inform
instructional practice.
Differentiated Assessment Improvement

In contrast to the positive learner perceptions of validity,
fairness, and backwash, the participants exhibited a reserved attitude
when they considered the task description clarity. This finding was
anticipated considering the continual (vs. one-shot) feature and the
multiple difficulty levels (vs. a single standard level) of differentiated
assessment (Blaz, 2013; Quiocho & Ulanoff, 2009; Tomlinson, 2005a).
Comprehensibility and the scoring criteria were identified as the
primary concerns of the participants regarding assessment clarity (Table
10). To enhance comprehensibility, the participants recommended
using examples to explain the assessment, providing bilingual task
descriptions, continuing using supplementary teacher explanations
in addition to the written descriptions, and highlighting keywords
that distinguish the task levels. To elucidate scoring decisions, they
recommended using clearly defined rubrics that specify the sub-skills
being evaluated and providing descriptors of the various performing
levels within each particular sub-skill.
Except for creating a bilingual version, all of these techniques were
already included in this study. However, because the participants at
the assessment-trial stage considered the detailed written information
perplexing, the information was consequently presented orally using a
PowerPoint presentation. This method failed to facilitate comprehension
effectively in this study. Both written copies of the assessment
52
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 52 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:50

information in the Appendices and sufficient teacher explanations might

be required. This postulation warrants verification in future studies.
The participants also recommended implementing pre-assessment
simulations to facilitate informed task-selection decisions. Several
participants required the pre-assessment activities to familiarize
themselves with the assessments; other participants wanted to undergo
a pre-assessment for self-evaluation and goal setting; and another
group of participants desired to base the task selection of subsequent
formal assessments on the teacher evaluations of the pre-assessment
activities. Although the reasons varied, the strategies proposed by the
participants indicated that the differentiated assessment stimulated
their metacognition. These findings in themselves support the
implementation of differentiated assessment in EFL classrooms. As
relevant literature has indicated, enhanced task familiarity leads to
enhanced language fluency and accuracy (Skehan, 1998; Xi, 2010),
and using metacognitive strategies is pivotal to successful L2 learning
(Cotterall & Murray, 2009).
The distinct learner opinions regarding maximal scores (Table 11)
indicate the diverse learning profiles of the participants. The reasons
for increasing or decreasing the scores at various task levels can be
categorized into the themes of fairness (Comments B, L, M), self-
efficacy (A, H), task value (J, K, N), and self-regulation (C, E, F, G).
This indicates that the learners with diverse learning profiles attached
importance to different aspects of an assessment. Several participants
regarded fairness as a crucial assessment concern; others believed that
learner efficacy and task value must be considered when designing
assessments; another group of participants considered assessment a
way to regulate their learning.
One Size Does Not Fit All

Despite the generally positive learner perceptions of the
differentiated assessment, several participants (all at the intermediate
English level) preferred a standardized assessment because they
perceived it to be simple and fair. The researcher postulates that these
learners disliked the assessment options because they were familiar
with top-down authoritative teaching (Lo, 2010; Scollon, 1999) and
believed that undergoing the pre-evaluation, task selection, goal setting,
re-evaluation, and re-planning process was inconvenient. They were
unfamiliar with the type of classroom practice requiring them to use
metacognition extensively.
In addition, these participants belonged to the group that
traditional curricula and assessments typically target. They might be
53
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 53 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:50

39.1 (Spring 2015)
unable to understand how the one-size-fits-all practice could deprive

their higher-achieving peers of the “meaning to continue learning”
(Sharon), and frustrate their lower-achieving peers who believe that
their failure is “predetermined” (Stan). Using the one-size-fits-all
approach in a class setting may appear to be fair, but it is not truly fair
because fairness, as Blaz (2013) contends, should involve providing
opportunities for all learners, regardless of readiness level, to access
knowledge, and practice and demonstrate skills.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR

PEDAGOGY AND FUTURE RESEARCH
To address the growing multiplicity and achievement gap in
EFL classrooms (Chamot, 2012; Kim, 2012), the researcher conducted
this study to examine learner perceptions of a set of three-tiered
differentiated assessment tasks designed to be used in a mixed-ability
L2 language course with students ranging from A2 to B2 levels. In the
first phase of the study, the assessment was developed using a nonlinear
and recursive process, which involved consulting expert opinions,
obtaining student feedback, and making multiple revisions. In the
second phase, learner perceptions of the assessment were investigated.
Overall positive learner perceptions of the assessment validity, fairness,
and backwash were observed. The student reflections indicate that the
assessment could reflect learner efforts and provide opportunities for
learners with diverse learning profiles to demonstrate acquired English
language skills. These results represent the two primary considerations
used in determining classroom speaking assessment fairness. Because
perceived fairness and the face validity of an assessment produce
beneficial backwash (Chory-Assad, 2002; P. S. Green, 1987), these
findings indicate that implementing differentiated assessment can
facilitate language development in a mixed-ability L2 speaking class.
Carefully examining the subgroups with distinct learning profiles
revealed that the level of GLO and English proficiency affected learner
perceptions. The low-proficiency students exhibited particularly positive
attitudes, whereas the W-GLO students exhibited reserved attitudes
regarding validity and backwash. The higher-proficiency students with
weak GLO also demonstrated reserved attitudes regarding backwash.
These findings yield several pedagogical implications. First,
differentiated assessment enhances task value and self-efficacy,
activates metacognition, and facilitates subsequent learning in L2
speaking classes. Although teachers typically consider themselves to be
unfamiliar with differentiation, elements of differentiated instruction
54
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 54 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:50

and assessment exist in numerous class contexts in various ways (King-

Shaver, 2008). By employing practices such as implementing cooperative
groups and teacher-writer conferences, and providing learner choice
in selecting assignment topics or reading lists, language teachers
are implementing pedagogies that support differentiated learning.
By extending these instructional skills and using the differentiated
assessment tasks developed in this study to serve as a framework
for further adaptation, L2 practitioners can establish a differentiated
curriculum and assessment that meet the specific needs of students in
their class contexts.
Second, clear grading constructs and criteria of differentiated
assessment tasks should be provided to students so that they can make
informed decisions regarding task selections and use the rubrics to
guide their learning (Hughes, 2003). Third, pre-assessment simulations
should be employed to assist students in making task-type and task-
level decisions based on their language developmental levels (Krashen,
1985, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978) and learning profiles (Chamot, 2012), and to
enhance task familiarity (Skehan, 1998; Xi, 2010).
In addition, three recommendations are offered for future research.
First, the present study involved two required group assessment
tasks and only one individual assessment task, which was optional.
The needs of individual and group learners should be balanced in
future assessment designs, and learner perceptions should be further
examined. Second, in addition to sufficient teacher explanation and
class discussion, written copies of detailed assessment information and
scoring criteria should be provided to students, and the effects should
be subsequently re-examined. Third, learner choice is a key principle
guiding differentiated assessment. Therefore, the motivating factors that
determine the learner selection of assessment type and task levels, and
the effects of GLO and language proficiency on these selections, warrant
investigation in future studies.
REFERENCES
Alberta Education. (2010). Making a difference: Meeting diverse learning
needs with differentiated instruction. Edmonton, Canada: Author.
Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap
with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s
story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 502-530.
Blaz, D. (2008). Differentiated assessment for middle and high school
classrooms. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
55
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 55 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:50

39.1 (Spring 2015)
Blaz, D. (2013). Differentiated instruction: A guide for foreign language

teachers. New York, NY: Routledge.
Brindley, G. (1998). Describing language development? Rating scales
and SLA. In L. F. Bachman & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces
between second language acquisition and language testing research
(pp. 112-140). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brosh, H. (1996). Perceived characteristics of the effective language
teacher. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 125-136.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language: An approach
based on the analysis of conversational English. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Chamot, A. U. (2009). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive
academic language learning approach (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY:
Pearson-Longman.
Chamot, A. U. (2012). Differentiated instruction for language and
learning strategies: Classroom applications. In W. M. Chan, K.
N. Chin, S. K. Bhatt, & I. Walker (Eds.), Perspectives on individual
characteristics and foreign language education (pp. 115-129). Boston,
MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
Chory-Assad, R. M. (2002). Classroom justice: Perceptions of fairness
as a predictor of student motivation, learning, and aggression.
Communication Quarterly, 50, 58-77.
Cohen, A. D. (2000). Strategies in learning and using a second language.
Beijing, China: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in
education (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cotterall, S., & Murray, G. (2009). Enhancing metacognitive
knowledge: Structure, affordances and self. System, 37, 34-45.
Council of Europe. (2012). Common European framework of reference for
languages—Self-assessment grid. Retrieved from https://europass.
cedefop.europa.eu/en/resources/european-language-levels-
cefr/cef-ell-document.pdf
DeBaryshe, B., Gorecki, D. M., & Mishima-Young, L. N. (2009).
Differentiated instruction to support high-risk preschool
learners. NHSA Dialog, 12, 227-244.
DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, UK:
Longman.
56
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 56 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:50

Educational Testing Service. (2007). TOEIC user guide. Princeton, NJ:

Author.
Edwards, C. J., Carr, S., & Siegel, W. (2006). Influences of experiences
and training on effective teaching practices to meet the needs of
diverse learners in schools. Education, 126, 580-592.
Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of
language learning success. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 67-
89.
Fulcher, G. (2003). Testing second language speaking. Harlow, UK:
Pearson.
Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and
practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2011). Frame of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
George, P. S. (2005). A rationale for differentiating instruction in the
regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44, 185-193.
Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. C. (2012). Curriculum-based early
literacy assessment and differentiated instruction with high-risk
preschoolers. Reading Psychology, 33, 11-46.
Gipps, C., & Stobart, G. (2009). Fairness in assessment. In C. Wyatt-
Smith & J. J. Cumming (Eds.), Educational assessment in the 21st
century: Connecting theory and practice (pp. 105-118). London, UK:
Springer.
Grafi-Sharabi, G. (2009). A phenomenological study of teacher perceptions
of implementing the differentiated instruction approach (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3393495)
Green, P. S. (1987). Communicative language testing: A resource handbook
for teacher trainers. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Akey, T. M. (2000). Using SPSS for
windows: Analyzing and understanding data (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Greenwood, C., Kamps, D., Terry, B., & Linebarger, D. (2007). Primary
intervention: A means of preventing special education? In D.
Haagar, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading
practices for response to intervention (pp. 75-03). Baltimore, MA:
Brookes.
Halliday, M. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London, UK:
Edward Arnold.
Higgs, T. V., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward communication.
57
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 57 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:50

39.1 (Spring 2015)
In T. V. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence and the foreign

language teacher (pp. 57-79). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.
Hochberg, Y., & Tamhane, A. C. (1987). Multiple comparison procedures.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Horan, S. M., Chory, R. M., & Goodboy, A. K. (2010). Understanding
students’ classroom justice experiences and responses.
Communication Education, 59, 453-474.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, Y. (2012). Implementing ability grouping in EFL contexts:
Perceptions of teachers and students. Language Teaching Research,
16, 289-315.
King-Shaver, B. (2008). Differentiated instruction: The new and not so
new. California English, 13(4), 6-8.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications.
London, UK: Longman.
Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lee, J. J. (2010). The uniqueness of EFL teachers: Perceptions of
Japanese learners. TESOL Journal, 1, 23-48.
Liao, H.-C., & Oescher, J. (2009). Does cooperative learning really
enhance self-efficacy and task value of English learners? Journal
of Education and Psychology, 32(3), 25-54.
Liao, H.-C., & Shih, Y.-L. (2013). Developing differentiated speaking
assessment tasks. International Journal of Assessment and
Evaluation, 19(1), 45-59.
Lo, Y.-F. (2010). Implementing reflective portfolios for promoting
autonomous learning among EFL college students in Taiwan.
Language Teaching Research, 14, 77-95.
Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
McCoy, J. D., & Ketterlin-Geller, L. R. (2004). Rethinking instructional
delivery for diverse student populations. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 40, 88-95.
Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing.
Language Testing, 13, 241-256.
Nesbit, P. L., & Burton, S. (2006). Student justice perceptions
following assignment feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 31, 655-670.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher
should know. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
58
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 58 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:50

Park, G.-P., & Lee, H.-W. (2006). The characteristics of effective

English teachers as perceived by high school teachers and
students in Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 7, 236-248.
Qingquan, N., Chatupote, M., & Teo, A. (2008). A deep look into
learning strategy use by successful and unsuccessful students in
the Chinese EFL learning context. RELC Journal, 39, 338-358.
Quiocho, A. L., & Ulanoff, S. H. (2009). Differentiated literacy instruction
for English language learners. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Reid, J. (1998). Perceptual learning style preference survey. In J. Reid
(Ed.), Understanding learning styles in second language classroom
(pp. 162-165). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R.
B. (2011). The effects of differentiated instruction and enrichment
pedagogy on reading achievement in five elementary schools.
American Educational Research Journal, 48, 462-501.
Santangelo, T., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). The application of
differentiated instruction in postsecondary environments:
Benefits, challenges, and future directions. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20, 307-323.
Scollon, S. (1999). Not to waste words or students: Confucian and
Socratic discourse in the tertiary classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Cultural in second language teaching and learning (pp. 13-27).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). Task-based instruction. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 18, 268-286.
Stempleski, S. (2006). World link video workbook three. Boston, MA:
Thompson.
Stevens, J. P. (1999). Intermediate statistics: A modern approach (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis.
International Education Journal, 7, 935-947.
Tobin, R. (2005). Co-teaching in language arts: Supporting students
with learning disabilities. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 784-
801.
Tobin, R., & McInnes, A. (2008). Accommodating differences:
Variations in differentiated literacy instruction in Grade 2/3
classrooms. Literacy, 42, 3-9.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2002). Different learners different lessons. Instructor,
112(2), 21-25.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005a). Grading and differentiation: Paradox or
good practice? Theory into Practice, 44, 262-269.
59
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 59 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:50

39.1 (Spring 2015)
Tomlinson, C. A. (2005b). Traveling the road to differentiation in staff

development. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 8-12.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2010). Differentiation model. Retrieved from http://
www.diffcentral.com/model.html
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated
instruction and understanding by design: Connecting content and kids.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Valiande, A. S., Kyriakides, L., & Koutselini, M. (2011, January).
Investigating the impact of differentiated instruction in mixed ability
classrooms. Paper presented at the International Congress for
School Effectiveness and Improvement, Limassol, Cyprus.
Valiande, S., & Tarman, B. (2011). Differentiated teaching and
constructive learning approach by the implementation of ICT in
mixed ability classrooms. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 12,
169-184.
VOA Idiom Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.
voanews.com/MediaAssets2/classroom/interactive_learning/
idiomdictionary/deploy/Glossary.html
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. New York,
NY: Plenum.
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of
motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational
Psychology Review, 12, 1-14.
Xi, X. (2010). Aspects of performance on line graph description tasks:
Influenced by graph familiarity and different task features.
Language Testing, 27, 73-100.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Hui-Chuan Liao, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the Department
of Applied Foreign Languages, National Kaohsiung University of
Applied Sciences in Taiwan. Her current research interests include
TEFL, classroom language assessment, instructional design and
evaluation in writing and speaking, learning strategies, and the effects
of individual differences on language learning.
60
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 60 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:50

APPENDIX A
Differentiated Speaking Assessment Task Descriptions
I. Impromptu Role-Play Performance

Task Level Basic Intermediate Advanced
Maximal Grade 80 points 90 points 100 points
Group Member Work with one partner on this task. Inform the teacher who
your partner is 2 weeks before the assessment.
Number of 30 minutes 30 minutes before you take your midterm
Expressions before your assessment, you and your partner will be
for the Midterm assessment, you given 8 expressions from Units 7 to 9. At
and your partner the same time, you will also be given a
will be given 8 list of 10 expressions from Units 1 to 6.
expressions from You must choose 3 expressions out of the
Units 7 to 9. 10.
Apply all the 8 Apply all the 11 expressions in your
expressions in dialogue.
your dialogue.
Number of 30 minutes 30 minutes before you take your final
Expressions before your assessment, you and your partner will be
for the Final assessment, you given 8 expressions from Units 10 to 12.
and your partner At the same time, you will also be given
will be given 8 a list of 10 expressions from Units 1 to 9.
expressions from You must choose 3 expressions out of the
Units 10 to 12. 10.
Use all 8 Use all 11 expressions in your dialogue.
expressions in
your dialogue.
Required Scenario None None When you receive your
assigned expressions,
you will also be assigned
a specific scenario
to implement into
your dialogue, which
means your dialogue
will realistically fit the
scenario.
61
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 61 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:50

39.1 (Spring 2015)
Length of Not required. (As long as you use all of the assigned
Performance expressions, the length of time does NOT matter.)
Preparation Time You have 30 minutes to prepare before your performance.
II. Bonus Project for the Final Exam: Topic Talk

• This bonus project is optional.
• The points you earn from doing this project will be added to your
final examination score.
• If the bonus points cause your final examination score to exceed
100, the teacher will consider adding the extra points to the daily
performance score of your semester grade after considering the
semester grades of the entire class.
Task Level Basic Intermediate Advanced
Maximal Grade 3 points 5 points 8 points
Group Member You will work independently on this task.
Task Details You will be given 3 topics from Units 9-12 one week before
the bonus project evaluation.
During the bonus project evaluation, you will be given one
“topic talk” topic from the 3 assigned topics.
Give a talk on the Give a talk on Give a talk on
topic for 1 minute. the topic for 1.5 the topic for 2
minutes. minutes.
Preparation Time None
III. Course Objective

This course is designed to enable you to improve your
communication skills by practicing conversations in real-life situations
and using useful expressions from the speaking curriculum based on
the World Link Video Course Level 3 workbook and VOA Idiom Dictionary.
62
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 62 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:51

APPENDIX B
Sample Scoring Charts for the Final Advanced-Level

Role Play
Step 1: Expressions Sub-Score Calculation

0 = did not use or incorrect use; 1 = partially correct use; 2 = correct use
Expression Score Expression Score
Use three of them (Units 1-9)
quiet as a mouse □ 0 □ 1 □ 2 very funny □0 □1 □2
For one thing □ 0 □ 1 □ 2 know that for a fact □0 □1 □2
see eye to eye □ 0 □ 1 □ 2 (be) out to lunch □0 □1 □2
skeleton in the closet □ 0 □ 1 □ 2 pull out all the stops □0 □1 □2
dude □ 0 □ 1 □ 2 quick and dirty + N □0 □1 □2
Use all of them (Units 10-12)
push oneself □ 0 □ 1 □ 2 out of the ordinary □0 □1 □2
up the ante □ 0 □ 1 □ 2 I take it... □0 □1 □2
take a rain check 0
□ □ □ 1 2 jump to conclusions □0 □1 □2
let the cat out of the It goes the other way
□0 □1 □2 □0 □1 □2
bag too.
Subtotal
Multiple by 1.82
Expressions Sub-Score
Step 2: Total Score Calculation

Advanced Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent
Content 1-8 9-11 12-15 16-17 18-20
Body language 1-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10
Language 1-9 10-17 18-23 24-26 27-30
Expressions 1-12 13-23 24-31 32-35 36-40
Subtotal
【Scenario】Students A and B: You decide to move out of the
dormitory and be roommates next semester. You are looking for an
apartment to share by surfing the Internet. However, Student A is
*___%
rich and Student B is secretly poor.
The dialogue met the scenario requirement = *100%; partially met
the requirement = *85%; did not meet the requirement = *70%.
Total Score
63
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 63 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:51

39.1 (Spring 2015)
APPENDIX C
Differentiated Speaking Assessment Learner-Perception

Questionnaire (DSALQ)
A. Instructions: Please read the assessment task descriptions in the

Appendix and scoring rubrics in the PowerPoint presentation. Listen
carefully to the explanation provided by the instructor and raise any
questions that you may have. Then, in each of the following items,
circle an option that most closely corresponds with your personal
perceptions of the differentiated assessment tasks.
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
1. I think the three levels of the assessment tasks 1 2 3 4 5
correspond to the varying English proficiency
levels of my classmates.
2. I feel confused by this new type of 1 2 3 4 5
differentiated assessment.
3. This differentiated assessment tests the students 1 2 3 4 5
knowledge and skills taught in class.
4. Using this differentiated assessment facilitates 1 2 3 4 5
my English learning.
5. The way in which the task descriptions are 1 2 3 4 5
written and organized should be improved.
6. This speaking assessment matches the course 1 2 3 4 5
objective listed in Part III of the Appendix .
7. I think the maximal score that each student can 1 2 3 4 5
earn accurately represents the time and effort
invested.
8. The differentiation system adopted in this 1 2 3 4 5
speaking assessment encourages me to study
harder.
64
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 64 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:51

9. The maximal scores for the various assessment 1 2 3 4 5

levels are fair.
10. The task descriptions should include more 1 2 3 4 5
details.
11. The differentiated assessment reflects the 1 2 3 4 5
English skills acquired from the speaking
course.
12. My English language proficiency is reflected in 1 2 3 4 5
one of the assessment levels.
13. I can quickly identify the differences among 1 2 3 4 5
the three task levels.
14. This differentiated assessment discourages me 1 2 3 4 5
from learning English.
15. The Appendix and the PowerPoint presentation 1 2 3 4 5
do not provide sufficient explanation of the
tasks.
16. The maximal score at each task level 1 2 3 4 5
corresponds to the task difficulty.
17. This differentiated assessment assesses how 1 2 3 4 5
much I have learned in the speaking class.
18. The descriptions of the differentiated 1 2 3 4 5
assessment are comprehensible.
B. Please provide your opinions regarding the differentiated assessment:

19. How can the clarity of the differentiated speaking assessment task
descriptions be enhanced?
20. Do you think the maximal scores for the three leveled tasks in the midterm
impromptu role-play performance should be adjusted? Please check the “as
is” box or fill in a recommended maximal score. If a change is suggested,
please briefly provide a rationale for the adjustment.
Basic Intermediate Advanced

80 90 100
□ Change to ______ □ Change to ______ □ Change to ______
□ As is □ As is □ As is
Reason: _________________________________________
65
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 65 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:52

39.1 (Spring 2015)
21. Do you think the maximal scores for the three leveled tasks in the final
impromptu role-play performance should be adjusted? Please check the “as

80 90 100
Reason: _________________________________________
22. Do you think the maximal scores for the three leveled tasks in the bonus
topic talk project for the final should be adjusted? Please check the “as

3 5 8
Reason: _________________________________________
23. Please provide additional viewpoints or suggestions regarding the
differentiated assessment in this reflection section. Use the back of this
page if additional space is required.
66
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 66 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:52

APPENDIX D
Group Learning Orientation Questionnaire (GLOQ)
Instructions: In each of the following items please circle an option that

most closely corresponds with your personal preferences. There is no
right or wrong answer. Your opinion matters.
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
1. I get more work done when I work with others. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I learn more when I study with a group. 1 2 3 4 5
3. In class, I learn best when I work with others. 1 2 3 4 5
4. When I work alone, I learn better. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I enjoy working on an assignment with two or 1 2 3 4 5
three classmates.
6. In class, I work better when I work alone. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I prefer working on projects by myself. 1 2 3 4 5
8. I prefer to work by myself. 1 2 3 4 5
67
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 67 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:52

39.1 (Spring 2015)
英語學習者對差異化口語學習評量之
看法
摘要
差異化教學與評量之理念與諸項學習動機與學習理論精神相符，
但目前卻少有研究探討差異化學習評量在 EFL ( 英語為外國語 )
情境下之使用。因此，本研究就學生對於差異化學習評量之看法，
包括差異化學習評量的效度、公平性、回沖效應以及改進建議進
行探討，且進一步分析學習者看法是否因其群體學習導向和英語
能力之不同而有所差異。本研究針對 300 位大二學生進行問卷施
測，並訪談其中六名研究對象，蒐集量化與質化資料。資料分析
法包含敘述性分析、單因子與雙因子變異數分析、單純效果分析
以及持續比較分析法。整體而言，學生對於差異化學習評量抱持
正向態度；因此，在多元能力英語口語課室中實施差異化學習評
量，對促進學生語言發展應有助益。研究結果進一步顯示，學生
對差異化學習評量之看法，受到個人英語能力與群體學習導向個
別作用與交互作用所影響。本文文末根據研究結果，針對在英語
課室使用差異化教學與評量以及未來研究方向提出建議。
關鍵詞：差異化學習評量　學習者差異　口語評量
68
英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 68 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:52

EFL Learner Perceptions of Differentiated Speaking Assessment Tasks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFL Learner Perceptions of Differentiated Speaking Assessment Tasks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

英語教學 English Teaching & Learning

39.1 (Spring 2015): 29-68 DOI: 10.6330/ETL.2015.39.1.02

EFL Learner Perceptions of Differentiated

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 29 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:44

Differentiation and Theoretical Framework

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 30 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:44

approaches of and processes required for individual learners, and are

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 31 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:44

Building awareness Differentiation guided Differentiating in

Self-efficacy Metacognitive &

Tomlinson (2005a) contends that instruction attuned to learner

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 32 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:44

meaning and increased learning engagement when they realized that

Obstacles for Using Differentiation

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 33 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:44

diverse learners, they believe it is complicated and time consuming

Learner-Perceived Fairness and Backwash

From the Prior to the Current Study

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 34 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:45

participants identified several areas of the differentiated assessment that

A Recursive and Nonlinear Differentiated Assessment

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 35 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:45

objective was to improve student communication skills by providing

The Differentiated Assessment Tasks

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 36 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:45

experts, this information was presented orally to the students through a

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 37 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:46

the differentiated assessment tasks in this study varied in terms of the

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 38 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:46

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 39 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:46

proficiency. The reliability of these instruments is reported in the

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 40 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:46

Data Collection and Analysis

Perceived Fairness, Validity, and Backwash

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 41 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:46

Effects of Learner Variances on Learner Perceptions

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 42 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:47

The second ANOVA found a significant effect (F(2, 285) = 6.919,

When I was asked to perform a language task, I usually did a miserable

Sharon, another interviewee with higher English proficiency and strong

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 43 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:47

usually unchallenging and boring.... This speaking assessment gives students

Another participant, Lulu (B1, M-GLO), considered the differentiated

Interaction Effects of Proficiency and GLO

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 44 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:47

Improving the Differentiated Assessment

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 45 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:47

Clarity. The descriptive statistics in Table 5 indicate a reserved

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 46 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:49

Leveled scores. Participant opinions regarding the maximal scores

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 47 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:49

Pre-assessment simulations. Twenty-one participants (7%) suggested

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 48 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:49

demanding. Finally, three participants (1%, all at the upper-intermediate

Effects of Learner Variances on Perceived Fairness

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 49 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:49

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 50 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:49

participants in the current study perceived the assessment to be a fair

Effects of Learner Variances on Perceived Validity and

Interaction Effects of Proficiency and GLO on Backwash

英語教學39(1)-02 廖惠娟.indd 51 2015/4/28 上午 11:35:49

S-GLO B2 learners considered the assessment facilitative to subsequent

Differentiated Assessment Improvement