Action Research Example JUNE 2018

UNIVERSITY OF EL SALVADOR
SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
MASTER IN DIDACTICS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT COMPARED WITH

TRADITIONAL ASSESSMENT IN THE ORAL PERFORMANCE AT
INTERMEDIATE INTENSIVE ENGLISH STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EL
SALVADOR.
Presented by:
SANTOS EDITH BAIRES AREVALO BA05034
ABRAHAM RECINOS ABARCA RA04013
Graduated Work Presented to Obtain the Degree of:

Master in Didactics of the English Language
Advisor:
MSdi. Ricardo Cabrera Martínez
MAIN CAMPUS, APRIL 2018

UNIVERSITY OF EL SALVADOR AUTHORITIES
Rector
Mtro. Roger Armando Arias Alvarado
General Secretary
Lic. Cristobal Hernán Ríos Benitez
UNIVERSITY OF EL SALVADOR SOCIAL SCIENCES AUTHORITIES
Dean
Lic. José Vicente Cuchillas Melara
Vice Dean
Mti. Edgar Nicolás Ayala

Director
Msc. Xenia María Pérez Oliva
MASTER IN DIDACTICS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Coordinator
Msdi. Ricardo Cabrera Martínez
Advisor:
Msdi. Ricardo Cabrera Martínez
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
SANTOS EDITH BAIRES AREVALO
First of all, I want to thank God for giving me the strength, knowledge and patience
throughout all these three years and now it is the fulfillment of my dream, he has given me
the blessing of finishing my master, Degree.
Special thanks to:
To my brother Juan Baires and Fabricio Baires, thanks for their economic support and their
words of encouragement.
I do not have words to thank all the people who helped me during all this process. I want to
mention an important person who did his best; checking out our project, for his motivational
words, for having devoted time and given us his ideas. MsDi. Ricardo Cabrera. Also, I want
to thank my dear friend Abraham Recinos for his marvelous friendship during these years
and also for his dedication with this research project. Finally, special thanks to my professors
at the FLD, some of them shaped my personality as a teacher. They were my role model to
follow in this gorgeous field of teaching.
iv
ABRAHAM RECINOS ABARCA
Three years ago, I was just beginning my master and this experience has impacted me
in more ways than what I thought. Writing this thesis was one of the most challenging
experiences in my life, so I would like to offer my regards and thanks to those who supported
me in this process.
I could have not completed this thesis without God’s blessings. He has guided and
supported me during the whole process. Also, my deepest gratitude goes to my family
especially to my beloved parents Pablo Recinos and Abelina Abarca whose endless
encouragement, support, guidance and belief that I can succeed have meant so much to me
throughout all my educational endeavors.
Moreover, I would like to express my gratitude to my professors and thesis advisor
for their contribution, invaluable guidance, constructive feedback, patience and trust in me.
I am deeply grateful to them for their endless support. This thesis would not have been real
if they had not been so supportive, encouraging, and positive to me.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my friend and partner in this thesis,
Edith Baires for having worked enthusiastically, and for her commitment and dedication in
this thesis.
Finally, I would also like to express my appreciation to all the participants (both the
instructors and the students) in my study for their willingness to participate and for their
cooperation with my thesis.
v
GRAPHICS AND PICTURES INDEX
ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION OF DATA AND OUTCOMES............................................ 33

STUDENTS’ FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 33
PART I ............................................................................................................................................. 33
Graphic #1........................................................................................................................................ 33
Graphic #2........................................................................................................................................ 35
PART II ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................. 36
Graphic #3........................................................................................................................................ 36
Graphic #6........................................................................................................................................ 39
Graphic #7........................................................................................................................................ 40
Graphic #8........................................................................................................................................ 41
Graphic #9........................................................................................................................................ 42
TRADITIONAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 43
Graphic #10...................................................................................................................................... 43
Graphic #11...................................................................................................................................... 44
Graphic #12...................................................................................................................................... 45
Graphic #13...................................................................................................................................... 46
Graphic #14...................................................................................................................................... 47
COMPARISON: MID TERM AND FINAL ORAL EVALUATION ........................................ 48
Graphic #15...................................................................................................................................... 48
vi
ANNEXES INDEX
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................ 66
ANNEX 1.......................................................................................................................................... 67
Students’ questionnaire .................................................................................................................. 67
ANNEX 2.......................................................................................................................................... 69
Teacher’s interview ......................................................................................................................... 69
ANNEX 3.......................................................................................................................................... 71
Rubric to evaluate students in the experimental group. .............................................................. 71
ANNEX 4.......................................................................................................................................... 72
Syllabus intensive intermediate English I ................................................................................. 72
ANNEX 5.......................................................................................................................................... 76
BUDGET .......................................................................................................................................... 76
PICTURES....................................................................................................................................... 77
vii
ACRONYMS
BA: Bachelor of Arts
CEFR: Common European Framework
EFL: English as Foreign Language
ESL: English as a Second Language
ELT: English Language Teaching
FLD: Foreign Language Department
TBA: Task-based Assessment
LAD: Language Acquisition Device
L1: Language Acquisition
SLA: Second Language acquisition
L2: Second Language
UES: University of El Salvador
viii
GENERAL INDEX
INICIAL PROTOCOL
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................iv
GRAPHICS AND PICTURES INDEX ...........................................................................................vi
ANNEXES INDEX ........................................................................................................................... vii
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................... viii
GENERAL INDEX ...........................................................................................................................ix
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................xi
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 13
JUSTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................... 16
DELIMITATION OF THE TOPIC .............................................................................................. 18
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................ 20
Importance of assessment ............................................................................................................... 20
Alternatives in assessment .............................................................................................................. 20
Traditional assessments vs. Alternative assessments. .................................................................. 22
Alternative Assessments ................................................................................................................. 24
Advantages for speaking assessment ............................................................................................. 26
HYPOTHESIS ................................................................................................................................. 28
OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................. 29
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................................................... 30
a) Participants.................................................................................................................................. 30
b) Instruments ................................................................................................................................. 30
c) Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................................ 31
d) Process of data Analysis program ............................................................................................. 32
e) Methods of Data Analysis ........................................................................................................... 32
f) Piloting the instruments .............................................................................................................. 32
ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION OF DATA AND OUTCOMES............................................ 33
STUDENTS’ FINDINGS ................................................................................................................ 33
PART I ............................................................................................................................................. 33
Graphic #1........................................................................................................................................ 33
ix
Graphic #2........................................................................................................................................ 35
PART II ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................. 36
Graphic #3........................................................................................................................................ 36
Graphic #6........................................................................................................................................ 39
Graphic #7........................................................................................................................................ 40
Graphic #8........................................................................................................................................ 41
Graphic #9........................................................................................................................................ 42
TRADITIONAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 43
Graphic #10...................................................................................................................................... 43
Graphic #11...................................................................................................................................... 44
Graphic #12...................................................................................................................................... 45
Graphic #13...................................................................................................................................... 46
Graphic #14...................................................................................................................................... 47
COMPARISON: MID TERM AND FINAL ORAL EVALUATION ........................................ 48
Graphic #15...................................................................................................................................... 48
TEACHERS’ INTERVIEW FINDINGS ...................................................................................... 50
ASSESSMENT PRACTICES AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ASSESSMENT ........................ 50
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 54
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................ 56
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 59
GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................... 62
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................ 66
Students’ questionnaire .................................................................................................................. 67
Teacher’s interview ......................................................................................................................... 69
Syllabus intensive intermediate English I ................................................................................. 72
ANNEX 5.......................................................................................................................................... 76
BUDGET .......................................................................................................................................... 76
PICTURES....................................................................................................................................... 77
x
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to determine if alternative assessment is more effective
compared with traditional assessment specifically in the development of students English-
speaking competences in the Intermediate Intensive I courses at the Department of Foreign
Language School of Arts and Sciences, at the University of El Salvador. Nowadays,
alternative assessment is getting more attention in the foreign language classroom because
students are involved in tasks, performances, demonstrations, and interviews reflecting
everyday situations within realistic and meaningful contexts. Therefore, the following
research aims to find out if alternative assessment is more effective compared with traditional
assessment specifically in the development of students English-speaking competences.
The lack of adequate and appropriate alternative assessment strategies is one of the
main problems encountered by the researchers of this study. There has been little systematic
research investigating how teachers assess students’ oral performance in the classroom.
Therefore, this study aims to investigate the status of classroom speaking assessment at the
Department of Foreign Language School of Arts and Sciences, at the University of El
Salvador and its effectiveness in students’ speaking competences.
Based on the syllabus of the Intermediate Intensive I 2017 courses, it can be reflected
that there is not an important application of alternative assessment strategies; in fact, they are
not even mentioned in the syllabus. This factor has called the researchers’ attention because
the syllabus for the intermediate courses reflects an important emphasis on traditional
assessment (paper and pencil exams). However, alternative assessment does not seem to be
of equal importance as traditional assessment is.
The study is targeted to students of (First- year BA in English Teaching and Modern
Languages). The hypothesis states that the level of speaking competences will be higher with
the use of alternative assessment than with the use of traditional assessment in students from
Intermediate Intensive English courses, semester II 2017, at the FLD of the University of El
Salvador. Another important aim of this study is to compare the role of alternative
assessment and traditional assessment when assessing students’ speaking competences.
xi
The data was collected from questionnaires and interviews where teachers and
students were the target population. Also, an intervention was developed to compare results
between students under traditional vs alternative assessment strategies before the mid-term
and final oral evaluation. The results have revealed that classroom speaking assessment
currently conducted at the FLD of the University of El Salvador has broadly employed
traditional assessment tasks. Therefore, there is still a strong tendency towards traditional
formal testing to measure and report learning outcomes of students’ speaking competences.
It is evident from this study that there is need for improvements in order to facilitate better
learning outcomes in the classroom. The study provides a range of suggestions for an
improvement of current practices, starting with a process to change the perceptions of
teachers, students, and policy makers towards alternative assessment followed by practical
actions such as teacher training, implementation of alternative assessment strategies to
improve students’ speaking competences.
In this study, both qualitative and quantitative analyses have been applied. This study
was conducted from August 2017 to March 2018 in which a correlational research design
was used. The hypothesis will be supported and the study findings suggest that most of the
students prefer alternative assessment (86% see graphic 2) rather than traditional assessment
in order to become effective and competent users of their target language. Therefore, this
study focuses on the importance that alternative assessment strategies have in order to
achieve a better speaking performance in the Intermediate Intensive I English courses at the
FLD of the University of El Salvador. Finally, this study contains not only a quasi-
experimental study demonstrating the utility of alternative assessment strategies in
developing students’ oral competences but also useful recommendations addressed to
authorities, teachers and students.
xii
INTRODUCTION
The use of alternative assessment into the English Language Teaching (ELT) has a
high importance because it is a basic component in the process of teaching and learning such
language. In the teaching and learning of a language, its significance does not decrease, but
it becomes still more interesting due to its extraordinary contribution in students’
development of competences, motivation and interests stimulated through it. In this study,
the researchers describe and contrast traditional and alternative assessment practices in order
to provide the reader with an understanding of the impact alternative assessment has on
students’ speaking competences. This study will reveal the impact of alternative assessment
on students, and the current state of assessment practices at the Foreign Language
Department of the University of El Salvador in order to set the context of this research.
The research topic “The effectiveness of alternative assessment compared with

traditional assessment in the oral performance at Intermediate Intensive English students at
the University of El Salvador” originated with the aim of contributing in the solution of
finding strategies of alternative assessment to improve students’ speaking performance with
the English language. Based on a previous diagnosis; the researchers found the need of
implementing alternative assessment strategies to develop students’ speaking competences
because traditional assessment has been of a great priority at the FLD of the University of El
Salvador. Therefore, the most important interest with the research topic was the relevance
that alternative assessment strategies have in improving students’ speaking competences so
that those strategies may be implemented.
In this way, the main problem proposed to research was “To what extent does
alternative assessment have advantages upon traditional assessment in the outcome of
students’ speaking competences in Intermediate Intensive English I courses, semester II
2017, at the FLD of the University of El Salvador?” Moreover, researchers also focus on
finding if English teachers use alternative assessment strategies to develop students’ speaking
competences. The study also examines the goals of traditional and alternative assessment,
13
their underlying philosophy, the major issues in traditional vs alternative assessment, how
assessment results are used, and some of the criticisms of traditional assessment.
Traditional Assessment practices are rooted in the behaviorist perspective of learning.

This perspective on learning is based on the idea that learning is a process of accumulating
knowledge and information in discrete pieces, with limited transfer or synthesis (Shepard,
2000). Shepard (2000) argues that assessment under this paradigm is aimed at determining if
students have retained the information given to them by their teachers. On the other hand,
alternative assessment is a way of measuring performance through a variety of open-ended,
creative, or communicative means (Brown, 2004). Alternative assessment has become into a
fundamental part of every educational purpose as a way to measure students’ progress or
achievement of their competences
As specific objectives, this study has three. The first is to measure the advantages of
using alternative assessment to calibrate students speaking competences, the second one is to
compare the role of alternative assessment and traditional assessment when assessing
students speaking competences and the last one is to find out if alternative assessment is more
effective compared with traditional assessment specifically in the development of students
English speaking competences. The general hypothesis which guided this study is “The level
of speaking competences will be higher with the use of alternative assessment than with the
use of traditional assessment in students from Intermediate Intensive English I courses,
semester II 2017, at the FLD of the University of El Salvador.”
In this study, both qualitative and quantitative analyses have been implemented. This
research is a quasi-experimental study about the effectiveness of alternative assessment in
the oral performance at Intermediate Intensive English I students at the Foreign Languages
Department of the University of El Salvador semester II 2017 compared with traditional
assessment. To develop this research, it was needed to have an intervention during five weeks
with a group of Intermediate Intensive I students. In this regard, a rubric was used to measure
students’ speaking performance. The study also involves a questionnaire administered to the
30% of the entire population of students of Intermediate courses and an interview applied to
14
4 teachers in charge of that course. In conclusion, this study answers if alternative assessment
is more effective compared with traditional assessment in the way to measure students
English-speaking competences.
This research has been divided into three phases. The first phase is related to the
process of the problem identification. The second phase is related to the population selected
to implement the study in order to gather the data. Finally, the last phase of the study is the
analysis and the interpretation of the data results to compare the outcomes of the control
midterm oral evaluation group and experimental final evaluation group to provide evidences
about the effectiveness of the implementation of alternative assessment strategies.
15
JUSTIFICATION
the University of El Salvador, came with the aim to contribute in the solution of finding
strategies of alternative assessment in the teaching learning process to improve students’
speaking performance with the English language because experience has demonstrated that
speaking has been one of the most complex skills to develop during the language learning
process. Due to this reason, it is necessary to find out what teachers of the FLD are doing to
help students to improve their speaking performance. Therefore, actions need to be
implemented with the aim of helping students to achieve a better oral English performance.
One of the most important aims of this study is to find out if alternative assessment is
more effective compared with traditional assessment specifically in the development of
students English-speaking competences. Therefore, the most important interest with the
research topic is to present the relevance that alternative assessment strategies have in
improving students’ speaking competences. Through this study, researchers aim to present
strong and valid reasons for incorporating alternative assessment in the foreign language
classroom so that teachers, students and authorities of the Foreign Language Department
(FLD) of the University of El Salvador become not only aware of the different alternative
assessment strategies but also, they use them successfully.
This study attempts to provide academic ideas in order to assess students through
alternative assessment strategies. Although, alternative assessment raises concerns about
certain features such as time-consuming, lack of teachers’ preparation to implement different
strategies of alternative assessment, guideline and students’ supervision; authors as Huerta-
Macias (1995) asserts, alternative assessment gains validity and reliability by the virtue of its
close assimilation to the learning and teaching process. According to him, a measure gains
trustworthiness if it consists of credibility ad auditability.
16
Finally, it is also important to bear in mind that good assessment has an eye on
students' weaknesses and strengths to ascertain that they have gained the necessary skills and
competences. In order for this to happen, teachers must be attentive to the diverse ways of
assessment and not to rely too heavily on a single method of assessment. Therefore, this study
will provide important elements that help improve the process of assessment in the classroom
taking into account the different strategies that exist to assess students’ oral competences.
17
DELIMITATION OF THE TOPIC
the University of El Salvador.” originated like a desire of the research members of the Master
in Didactics of the English language. This desire came with the aim to contribute in the
solution of finding strategies of alternative assessment in the teaching learning process to
improve students’ speaking performance with the English language. On the other hand, the
most important interest with the research topic was the relevance that alternative assessment
strategies have in improving students’ speaking competences.
In this way, the main problem proposed to research was “To what extent does
alternative assessment have advantages upon traditional assessment in the outcome of
students’ speaking competences in Intermediate Intensive English courses, semester II 2017,
at the FLD of the University of El Salvador?” Moreover, researchers also focused on finding
information connected to the problem that can contribute to solve it, for instance to verify
what is the way in which English teachers use alternative assessment strategies to develop
students’ speaking competences and how they use them in the teaching learning process of
the English language.
The main problem proposed to develop the study has to do with:
- The disadvantages of using traditional assessment and how it affects students

speaking competences.
- The use of traditional assessment when assessing students speaking competences.
- The comparison of alternative assessment with traditional assessment specifically in

the development of students English-speaking competences.
18
The theoretical framework provides information about what has been researched about the
problem. It has the importance of assessment and information about both alternative and
traditional assessment.
Important information about the research project:
Time and place:
This research about “The effectiveness of alternative assessment compared with

the University of El Salvador semester II 2017” was conducted from August 2017 to March
2018. The place chosen for this study was the Foreign Language Department (FLD) of the
University of El Salvador.
Population:
This research was addressed to a group of students of Intermediate Intensive English

I at the Foreign Language Department (FLD) of the University of El Salvador. There was a
control midterm oral evaluation and an experimental final oral evaluation in the same group
in order to develop this research. No only students participated in this study but also teachers
in charge of the courses of Intermediate Intensive English I.
The data collected from the control midterm oral evaluation was through observation.
On the other hand, in the experimental final oral evaluation, besides observation for five
weeks, actions were taken through role-plays, and techniques to develop speaking skills, the
purpose of this intervention was to prepare students for the final oral test (alternative
assessment). Furthermore, a questionnaire was administered to students with the purpose of
finding out which type of assessment they prefer, whether alternative assessment or
traditional assessment.
19
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Importance of assessment
In the past, assessment tools and procedures were chosen at the level of the Ministry
of Education, school district, school administration, or program coordinator. With the advent
of learner-centered and communicative teaching methodologies, however, in many settings
"control over the collection and interpretation of assessment information has shifted from
centralized authority towards the classrooms where assessment occurs on a regular basis"
(Fradd and Hudelson 1995). This shift gives the classroom teacher a decisive role in assessing
students and makes it necessary for the teacher to look for new assessment techniques to
evaluate students' achievement and progress.
Alternatives in assessment
Pierce and O'Malley define alternative assessment as "any method of finding out
what a student knows or can do that is intended to show growth and inform instruction and
is not a standardized or traditional test" (1992:2). Specifically, alternative ways of assessing
students take into account variation in students' needs, interests, and learning styles; and they
attempt to integrate assessment and learning activities. In addition, they indicate successful
performance, highlight positive traits, and provide formative rather than summative
evaluation.
There have been different researchers who have found the need to implement
alternative assessment in the classroom. For instance, Sidek (2012) explained that traditional
testing, which typically required students to comprehend and process specific data had to be
modified to include assessments with meaningful tasks that were more communicative in
nature. Tamjid and Birjandi (2011) supposed that teachers needed to move away from
traditional, one-answer assessments toward performance-based tests and assessments in
which the students’ personal accountability was raised. Possible assessment types that can
facilitate a better English-speaking performance include Dynamic Assessment, Task-based
Assessment and Formative Assessment using peer- and self-evaluations. With these
strategies, new teaching practices must be assessed.
20
People within the educational community, i.e., policymakers, educators, students,
parents, administrators, have different ideas regarding the implementation of assessment
strategies (Dietel, Herman, and Knuth, 1991). While some believe traditional assessment
methods are more effective, others think that alternative assessment tools are superior.
Alternative assessments assess higher-order thinking skills. Students have the opportunity to
demonstrate what they learn. This type of assessment focuses on the growth and the
performance of the students. Therefore, alternative assessment presents new ways of
motivating and inspiring learners to explore and exploit dimensions of themselves as well as
the world around them.
Assessment is one of the most important phases in English learning process.

Assessment, defined as “a systematic process for gathering data about student achievement,”
is an essential component of teaching (Dhindsa, Omar, & Waldrip, 2007). As Struyven,
Dochy, and Janssens (2005) argue, the impact of assessment is significantly observable on
students’ performance. The way students approach learning determines the way they think
about classroom assignments and tests (Struyven et al., 2005). Recent studies advocate for
including students in the process of developing assessment tools because, as Falchikove
2004) states, student involvement in peer assessment adds more value to the learning process.
Assessment in education is the product of the 20th century. Michael Scriven (1967)
proposes the use of “formative and summative” assessment in order to make the distinction
between the roles of evaluation. Hence, assessment is perceived to serve two different
purposes: 1) informative, to improve instruction, and, 2) summative to measure students’
achievement (Scriven, 1967, p. 41). The use of assessment to classify, predict, and sort has
also changed to advance the process of teaching and learning in addition to accountability
purposes (Gordon, 2008). Aligning with other authors, Pellegrino and Goldman (2008), and
Shepard (2000) suggest ways that classroom assessment can be improved in order to increase
learning, such as the content and the characteristics of assessment, utilization of assessment
results, and integration of assessment as a course in teacher education programs.
21
There is no empirical investigation on student involvement in classroom assessment
process that demonstrates its advantages or disadvantages. Given the paucity of such
research, Cavanagh et al. (2005) suggest that two strategies can instead be applied: 1)
examine the research on assessment forms/approaches that teacher’s use; 2) inquire into
students’ perceptions about assessment. Looking at students and teachers’ perceptions about
the role of assessment in the classroom and students’ approach to learning will enrich this
study. First, because students’ perceptions of assessment will affect their learning approach,
which will affect in turn the extent, to which students are successful in their classrooms.
Second, integrating teachers’ perceptions will build a foundation and rationale for the
assessment practice they use in their classrooms, through which one can learn to what extent
and in what ways students’ perceptions of classroom assessment impacts their learning.
Traditional assessments vs. Alternative assessments.
Traditional Assessment practices are rooted in the behaviorist perspective of learning.

This perspective on learning is based on the idea that learning is a process of accumulating
knowledge and information in discrete pieces, with limited transfer or synthesis (Shepard,
2000). Shepard (2000) argues that assessment under this paradigm is aimed at determining if
students have retained the information given to them by their teachers. On the other hand,
alternative assessment is a way of measuring performance through a variety of open-ended,
creative, or communicative means (Brown, 2004). Alternative assessment has become into a
fundamental part of every educational purpose as a way to measure students’ progress or
achievement of their competences. Nowadays, in almost every aspect of students’ lives, they
are being asked to learn more, process more, and produce more.
There has been a movement from traditional assessment toward alternative

assessments. Alternative assessment started being used as a means for educational reform
due to the increasing awareness of the influence of testing on curriculum and instruction
(Dietel, Herman, and Knuth, 1991). Similarly, Reeves stated that traditional assessment,
which is generally called testing, is challenged by alternative assessment approaches (2000).
22
There are differences between how learning is conceived in constructivism and
behaviorism. In constructivist settings, learners are viewed as constructers of information
about the world by actively using their metacognitive skills (O’Malley & Pierce, 1996). They
are active processors of information through the guidance received from the environment.
Behaviorism merely focuses on the observable side of learners (Yurdabakan, 2011).
Constructivism implies that learners determine their own pace and content of knowledge, so
instead of accessing the ‘truth’ as suggested by behaviorists, every person goes on a different
path of learning (Anderson, 1998). At this point, teachers assume the roles of guides,
facilitators, and scaffolders instead of being the transmitters of information or authority
figures (Anderson, 1998). What is more about constructivism, the learning context involves
the learners’ views and take actions based on their individual differences, interests, or
affective needs (Yurdabakan, 2011).
According to Bailey (1998), traditional assessments are indirect and inauthentic. She
also adds that traditional assessment is standardized and for that reason, they are one-shot,
speed-based, and norm-referenced. Law and Eckes (1995) underline the same issue and state
that traditional assessments are single-occasion tests. That is, they measure what learners can
do at a particular time. However, test scores cannot tell about the progression of students.
Similarly, they cannot tell what particular difficulties the students had during the test. Bailey
(1998) also mentions that there is no feedback provided to learners in this type of assessment.
The projects are mainly individualized and the assessment procedure is decontextualized.
Law and Eckes (1995) point out most standardized tests assess only the lower-order thinking
skills of the learner. Similarly, Smaldino et al. (2000) state that traditional assessment often
focus on learner’s ability of memorization and recall, which are lower level of cognition
skills.
23
Alternative assessments, on the other hand, assess higher-order thinking skills.
Students have the opportunity to demonstrate what they learned. This type of assessment
tools focus on the growth and the performance of the student. That is, if a learner fails to
perform a given task at a particular time, s/he still has the opportunity to demonstrate his/her
ability at a different time and different situation. Since alternative assessment is developed
in context and over time, the teacher has a chance to measure the strengths and weaknesses
of the student in a variety of areas and situations (Law and Eckes, 1995).
More authentic assessment tools, such as portfolios, independent projects, journals

and so on, let learners express their knowledge on the material in their own ways using
various intelligences (Brualdi, 1996). According to Gardner, there are eight intelligences
(Brualdi): “1. logical-mathematical intelligence, 2. linguistic intelligence, 3. spatial
intelligence, 4. musical intelligence, 5. bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, 6.the personal
intelligences: a. interpersonal intelligence, b. intrapersonal intelligence, 7. naturalistic
intelligence” (1996, online document).
Alternative Assessments
Studies in the field of foreign language pedagogy and second language acquisition
have indicated that Dynamic Assessment, Task-based Assessment, and Formative
Assessment using self- and peer evaluations show potential effectiveness (Asghar, 2010;
Byrnes, 2002; Geeslin, 2012; Lantolf & Poehner, 2010). One type of alternative assessment
is Dynamic Assessment, based on Vygotsky’s (1978) theory that teacher interventions with
clear examples and instruction would help students move into self-reliance and mastery.
In recent years and with greater frequency, teachers have begun using Dynamic
Assessment with foreign language learners. This research seeks to incorporate Dynamic
Assessment into the L2 classroom, as an alternative to traditional methods, in an effort to
increase student learning potential.
24
Another potential alternative assessment is Task-based Assessment. According to
Byrnes (2002), Task-based Assessment focused on language use and meaning that is
contextualized in a communicative manner, typically through writing. The purpose of
Byrnes’ research was to promote a shift from grammar-based instruction through a different
assessment approach. Byrnes created rubrics to evaluate students’ work to ensure consistency
and use as a guideline for students while they worked. Assessments were created with
communication in a real-world context, or as close to real-world as possible, at the forefront
while still addressing the content needs of the textbook. The assessments were all writing
assignments. Researchers concluded that communicative competency increased with their
students by implementing Task-based Assessments.
Formative Assessment using self- and peer-evaluation forms is another viable

alternative assessment. Tamjid and Birjandi (2011) realized a need for altering traditional
assessments in order to stay current with the movement toward learner-centered classrooms.
In their study, all students were assigned writing prompts that the instructors graded;
however, the experimental group also completed self-assessment rubrics and were randomly
given another student’s assignment to assess using the same rubric. Then students all revised
their assignments before submitting to the instructors. Tamjid and Birjandi found that the
experimental group improved their metacognition, which led to better thinking and learning
skills that could be used on future assignments. Bryant and Carless (2009), also used peer-
assessment methods; they hypothesized that self- and peer- assessments would stimulate
more learner independence and create an atmosphere in which students desired improvement
through reflective thinking.
In the language-testing field, much of the research has been focused on external
standardized tests, which are used for making decisions about individuals and programs
(Shohamy, 1994). However, as Rea-Dickins (2007) points out, with an increasing recognition
of the significant limitations associated with a sole focus on learning outcomes as a measure
of learner performance, the importance of the language learning process involving
assessment has currently drawn more attention.
25
The strength of classroom assessment lies in the fact that it is integrated with the
normal processes of teaching and learning and provides useful information on student
learning in context (Leung, 2005). Thus, the distinctive usefulness and pedagogical value of
classroom assessment can be taken into account in an alternative approach to the more
conventional forms of standardized language testing.
Advantages for speaking assessment
In fact, with respect to classroom assessment, which targets oral skills, little research
has been conducted. Most studies examine classroom assessment in general; for example,
Dochy & McDowell (1997); Adamson & Davison (2003); Cumming & Maxwell (2004).
Thus, this section examines the advantages of classroom assessment for assessing oral skills
by reference to research concerning performance assessment and communicative language
tests as well as classroom assessment.
First, classroom assessment is more likely to offer opportunities for teachers to

directly observe linguistic performance through classroom observations or direct testing
(Brown, 2001). According to the Universal Grammar approach, directly observe linguistic
competence referring to the underlying linguistic abilities or knowledge of language cannot,
whereas linguistic performance the domain of language use can be directly observed
(Mitchell & Myles, 2004). McNamara (1996) points out that the assessment of linguistic
performance allows us to make direct inference of an individual’s ability to use language
appropriately or correctly in a variety of situations. Thus, a reliable and valid assessment
method needs to evaluate a test-taker’s performance rather than her/his linguistic knowledge.
In particular, if the target language domain of assessment is speaking, then the importance of
direct testing using performance tasks is critically increased. This is in line with Brown’s
(2001) argument that performance assessment contributes to improving content validity since
students actually perform the target language use.
26
In addition, Moon and Callahan (2001) insist that performance assessment can
promote test authenticity because it presents learners with situations or asks them to perform
academic exercises that simulate real-life experiences or problems. Test authenticity in
relation to performance assessment can be considered in the communicative language
teaching approach. In terms of Canale and Swain’s (1980) communicative competence
model, speaking by its nature needs to be judged because of social context, interaction,
communication, and integrated skills, all of which can be provided in the classroom context
involving peers and a teacher.
Third, classroom assessment can serve as a powerful motivation factor. Crooks

(1988) argues that tests in general have positive effects on enhancing learning motivation.
According to Savignon (1997), especially in relation to communicative assessment,
discrepancy between the test taker’s grammatical competence and communicative
competence is manifested. Students can notice the gap between their linguistic competence
and real language use while involving interaction with peers or a teacher. Consequently, it
helps learners recognize what is important and to know how to use what language they have
learned in a variety of ways in real life situations.
Lastly, classroom assessment may be beneficial for reducing any student anxiety
associated with test taking. Concerning the relationship between test anxiety and test results,
both Phillips (1992) and Crooks (1988) provide evidence of a negative correlation between
such anxiety and test achievements in the overall assessment situation. Crooks (1998)
concludes that the negative influence of a learner’s higher anxiety on achievement tends to
be greater on standardized tests than in classroom assessment. Underhill (1987) explains the
positive function of classroom assessment in reducing test anxiety in relation to the test-
taker’s familiarity with the test environment and the assessor. Namely, when assessed by the
students’ own teacher in the familiar classroom, students are more relaxed and confident and
hence usually able to demonstrate better performance and proficiency than they can
demonstrate in standardized tests.
27
HYPOTHESIS
GENERAL HYPOTHESIS
The level of speaking competences will be higher with the use of alternative assessment than
with the use of traditional assessment in students from Intermediate Intensive English I
courses, semester II 2017, at the FLD of the University of El Salvador.
NULL HYPOTHESIS
The level of speaking competences will not be higher with the use of alternative assessment
than with the use of traditional assessment in students from Intermediate Intensive English I
courses, semester II 2017, at the FLD of the University of El Salvador.
28
OBJECTIVES
General objective
To research the difference and relationship between alternative assessment and traditional
assessment regarding to the development of students speaking competences in Intermediate
Intensive English I courses, semester II 2017, at the FLD of the University of El Salvador.
Specific objectives
- To measure the advantages of using alternative assessment to calibrate students

- To compare the role of alternative assessment and traditional assessment when

assessing students speaking competences.
- To find out if alternative assessment is more effective compared with traditional

assessment specifically in the development of students English-speaking
competences.
29
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The primary aim of this part is to present the research methodology of the current
study in order to get all the information to answer the main research question; this quasi-
experimental study involves teachers and students’ participation in the process of English
assessment at the FLD of the Intermediate Intensive courses. Hence, to research the problem,
this study addresses the research question: To what extent does alternative assessment have
advantages upon traditional assessment in the outcome of students speaking competences in
Intermediate Intensive English I courses, semester II 2017, at the FLD of the University of
El Salvador.
This quasi-experimental study involves a questionnaire and an interview respectively.

First, the dataset collected from the students’ questionnaire portray the overall picture of
alternative assessment and traditional assessment. Second, the data from teacher’s interviews
provide in-depth information about individual teacher’s perception of alternative assessment
and traditional assessment and the benefits that alternative assessment has.
a) Participants
This quasi-experimental study was developed during the second semester of the year
of 2017. The participants of the study were a group of students from the subject of
Intermediate Intensive English I course from the Foreign Language Department University
of El Salvador.
b) Instruments
Students
In order to collect the data for this study, the following was done:
30
QUESTIONNAIRE: In this study, a questionnaire was administered to students as a
sample from first year of the BA in English Teaching and Modern Languages at the FLD of
the University of El Salvador to identify if the level of speaking competences is higher with
the use of alternative assessment compared with the use of traditional assessment in
Intermediate Intensive English I courses, semester II 2017. (See annex 1) The questionnaire
has closed-ended questions. The researchers elaborated a questionnaire with 16 items trying
to gather all the necessary information for this study.
Teachers
INTERVIEW: Besides the data collected via questionnaires with students, in this study, an
interview was conducted with some of the teachers at the FLD in order to describe in detail
their perceptions of traditional and alternative assessment regarding speaking performance
of Intermediate Intensive English I. The instructors all have teaching experience at the FLD
of the UES. The interview structured which means the researchers elaborated the items in
advanced. The teachers’ interview has 16 open-ended items. (See interview format in annex
c) Data Collection Procedures
Before conducting the study, the researchers first requested permission to the FLD
professors in charge of the Intermediate Intensive English courses selected to be administered
the questionnaire. During October of 2017, the researchers piloted the questionnaire to some
students of the Intermediate Intensive courses selected for this study. The updated
questionnaire was administered to students in November of 2017 during class hours and it
took about 15 minutes to complete it. The researchers were in the classroom while students
answer the questionnaire. During November of 2017, the researchers interviewed the
instructors who were part in the study. The interview took place in either their staffrooms or
in their offices. The interview took from 15 to 20 minutes, depending on the instructors’
elaboration on the questions prepared in advanced.
31
d) Process of data Analysis program
In order to do the data analysis, Excel program was used.
e) Methods of Data Analysis
In this quasi-experimental study, both qualitative and quantitative analyses were used.
In addition, varieties of techniques were employed to maintain reliability and validity of the
study such as interviews, and questionnaires. Therefore, this study seeks to answer questions
like: To what extent does alternative assessment have advantages upon traditional
assessment in the outcome of students speaking competences in Intermediate Intensive
English courses, semester II 2017, at the FLD of the University of El Salvador? Can
alternative assessment develop better speaking skills than traditional assessment? Is
alternative assessment a new way to motivate learners to explore and exploit dimensions of
themselves to improve speaking English skills? Is alternative assessment more effective
compared with traditional assessment in the way to measure students English speaking
competences? Is alternative assessment better to assess speaking competences than
traditional assessment? Are alternative assessment strategies such as role-plays effective to
achieve a better speaking performance?
f) Piloting the instruments
In order to pilot the instruments, three students from a group of Intermediate courses
were taken into account to carry out the piloting data. This piloting was considered as
essential information to improve the instruments to get the real data that provide the results
in this research project.
32
ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION OF DATA AND OUTCOMES
STUDENTS’ FINDINGS
PART I
Graphic #1
1-Which of the following assessment strategies are mostly used

in your classroom?
20% 4%
22%
17%
13%
6% 5% 13%
a) portfolio b) quiz
c) speech d) presentation
e) self-assessment f) peer-assessment
g) role play h) written exams
This graphic represents that students are aware that they use different assessment
strategies. They do have experience working with different assessmnet strategies. According
to their responses, they have been evaluated with alternative and tradional assessment
because of the options they selected. They answered that all of the options are useful in the
classroom but the most used are quizzes (22% of students), written exams (20% of
students), speeches (13% of students), role plays ( 17% of students) and presentations
(13% of students). As we can see on the results, students agree that traditional assessment
has been the most important strategy used in the classroom. Students confirmed that
tradional assessment has been more used in the classroom, but they prefer alternative
assessment because it motivates them to practice their speaking skills.
33
2- What do you think about alternative assessment strategies such as presentations,
portfolios and speeches in order to develop a higher level of your speaking
competences?
According to student’s opinions and experiences, they responded that alternative assessment
is more useful for developing their speaking competences because they have the opportunity
to practice their speaking skills and it is a dynamic way when they are evaluated.
Furthermore, they said, that speaking is more important than writing because it allows them
to improve their knowledge about spoken English language. As you can see on the graph # 2
result are clear that the majority of the students prefer alternative assessment to develop their
speaking competences because they enjoy learning through alternative strategies such as
role-plays, presentations, speeches, portfolio, and self-assessment, etc.
3- What do you think about traditional assessment methods such as quizzes and
written exams?
Students think that written test are boring, they are good to practice grammar and vocabulary.
Traditional assessment assess different areas of knowledge but they are still boring. They
consider that a presentation is more important than a written assessment task because they
can be more creative when they present the information. Some students say they still like
traditional assessment, according to graph #11, it can be considered that the main reason is
that these students have been mainly exposed to traditional assessment since elementary
school.
34
Graphic #2
4- Which type of assessment allows you to have a

better performance of your knowledge about your
speaking competences of the English language?
14%
86%
A) Alternative assessment B) Traditional assessment
This graphic shows that students already know about the difference between the
alternative assessment and traditional assessment and they do agree that alternative
assessment allows them to have a better performance of their knowledge about their speaking
competences of the English language. According to the results above, the graphic represents
that 86% of students chose alternative assessment as better option to reflect their knowledge
about their English speaking competences. It means that they find useful the different
strategies such as role-plays, presentations, speeches, portfolio, and self-assessment, etc.
Only 14% of students selected traditional assessment, it can be assumed that they do not
have experience using traditional assessment as a tool to improve their speaking skills.
35
PART II ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT
Graphic #3
1- How often do you use some form of alternative assessment for

example rubrics, individual project, group project, class discussion,
presentation, demonstrations or performance tasks?
12% 3%
29% 56%
a) Every day/ week b) Every month
c) Every school term d) Every school year
In this question, the graphic represents that 56% of students said that they use “every
day/week” some form of alternative assessment and 29% of students said “every month”,
it means that they do recognize what is alternative assessment and when they use it. The
options provided represent the time that alternative assessment is used in the classroom; it
makes sure that traditional assessment plays an important role in the classes. Students
expressed that alternative assessment is used during the class because they discuss different
topics and they perform some role-plays regarding to the topic developed in the class. It is
done in order to improve their speaking skills, it is part of formative assessment, and it is
mostly used as instructional process incorporated into the classroom practice.
36
Graphic #4
2- Alternative assessment adequately measures the learning

outcomes of my speaking competences
8%
25%
67%
a) Strongly agree b) agree

c) disagree
In the previous graph, the statement “Alternative assessment adequately measures

the learning outcomes of my speaking competences”, the option “strongly agree” has the
25% of students while 67% of students responded they agree and just 8% of students
disagree. In addition to the results, all the alternatives assessment strategies can definitely
measure speaking competences level because teachers can use different criteria in an oral
evaluation rubric in order to assess grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, content, etc. It is
important to mention that alternative assessment can be used not only as summative
assessment at the district/classroom level is an accountability measure that is generally used
as part of the grading process, but also as formative assessment to get information needed to
adjust teaching and learning.
37
Graphic #5
3- Results achieved on standardized tests demonstrate an

objective picture of my progress in this course.
6%
16%
41%
37%

c) disagree d) strongly disagree
This graphic explains that 41% of students strongly agree, “Results achieved on
standardized tests demonstrate an objective picture of their progress in this course”.
37% of students of the sample agree, Just 16% of students disagree. The maximum amount
of students strongly agree or agree. The term standardized is primarily associated with large-
scale tests administered to large populations of students. A standardized test is any form of
test that (1) requires all test takers to answer the same questions, or a selection of questions
from common bank of questions, in the same lay, and (2) is scored in a “standard” or
consistent manner, which makes it possible to compare the relative performance of individual
students or groups of students. The majority of students during their entire life have been
assessed with standardized test; that is the reason why it can be assumed why they feel
identified and agree that results achieved on standardized test demonstrate an objective
picture of their progress of their learning in any course.
38
Graphic #6
4- Immediate feedback, formative and summative

assessment do improve the instruction and affect positively
in myself.
14%
35%
51%
a) Strongly agree b) agree c) disagree
The results obtained in this graph shows that 51% of students of the sample agree
with the statement “Immediate feedback, formative and summative assessment do
improve the instruction and affect positively in myself”. Besides that, 35% of students
strongly agree while only 14% of responded they disagree. The results reflect the maximum
amount of students need immediate feedback about their performance because they want to
be aware about their leaning process. Having the necessary feedback about what is required
to improve is a way to view the progress to increase the knowledge because learning should
be monitored through formative and summative assessment. One distinction is to think of
formative assessment as "practice." We do not hold students accountable in "grade book
fashion" for skills and concepts they have just been introduced to or are learning. We must
allow for practice. Formative assessment helps teachers determine next steps during the
learning process as the instruction approaches the summative assessment of student learning.
39
Graphic #7
5- Portfolio presents the assessment strategy that gives me

an objective picture of my development over time.
10% 3% 16%
71%

This graphic represents that 16% of students strongly agree, 71% of students agree,
10% of students disagree and only 3% of students strongly disagree. The majority of the
sample taken for this research project agreed with the statement “Portfolio presents the
assessment strategy that gives them an objective picture of their development over
time”. It can be assumed that students see portfolio as a very good alternative assessment
strategy that is useful to make them improve their speaking competences and therefore as an
opportunity for them to get better results. Initially, alternative assessments are typically
formative. Portfolio assessments compile multiple alternative assessments collected
formatively during the course and turn them into an overview for summative assessment at
the end of the course.
40
Graphic #8
6- Alternative assessment presents an essential part of the

international education for its flexibility and adjusting to the
student learning styles and individual development.
2%
2%
46%
50%

According to this graphic, 50% of students agree, 46% of students strongly agree,
2% of students disagree and the other 2% of students respectively strongly disagree with
the statement presented in the chart. It can be assumed that most of the students see the
statement “alternative assessment presents an essential part of the international
education for its flexibility and adjusting to the student learning styles and individual
development” as a way to adjust to each individual’s learning process which is an essential
part of the education around the world and also as a change to be taken into account in their
English courses in order to improve their speaking competence.
41
Graphic #9
7- Alternative assessment should be used in this course in order to

improve students’ speaking competences.
2%
41%
57%

This graphic analyzes the statement “Alternative assessment should be used in

this course in order to improve students’ speaking competences”. The results show that
57% of students strongly agree, 41% of students agree and just 2% of students disagree.
It can be assumed that most of the students see alternative assessment as a useful strategy to
help them improve their speaking competences in the learning process of a foreign language
like English. In a nutshell, students feel more confident with alternative assessment, the main
reason is that students see alternative assessment as more dynamic than traditional
assessment, not only that, but also it motivates students to have more interaction with their
target language in order to improve their speaking competences. They expressed that
alternatives assessment gave them the opportunity to practices their speaking skills, not only
in the classroom, but also outside the classroom when they practice to get ready to be
evaluated.
42
TRADITIONAL ASSESSMENT
Graphic #10
TRADITIONAL ASSESSMENT
1- How often are you evaluated in form of traditional
assessment (for example Standardized textbook or teacher-
made tests?
11% 22%
67%
Every day/week Every month Every school term
In this chart, it can be shown that 67% of students responded that they are evaluated
every month, 22% of students responded every day or every week and 11% of students
responded every school term. Traditional assessments refer to conventional methods of
testing, usually standardized and use pen and paper with multiple-choice, true or false or
matching type test items. It is worth mentioning that the type of assessment developed in
these courses is traditional assessment based on the observation and the syllabus. It is
important to mention that traditional assessment has a higher percentage than alternative
assessment. In this regard, traditional assessment has normally the 60% and alternative
assessment has a percentage of 40%. Therefore, there is a higher emphasis on traditional
assessment.
43
Graphic #11
2- Do you like to take home multiple choice, yes/no, true false

tasks or essay writing?
35%
65%
YES NO
In this chart, 35% of students responded they do not like taking home multiple choice,
yes/no, true false or essay writing while 65% of students responded yes. Traditional
assessment refers to standardized testing that uses questions with a limited number of answer
choices. It includes multiple choice, true or false and some short answer responses. It can be
mentioned that students are mainly exposed to traditional assessment in classes since
elementary school, which is the reason why they find worthy to take these tasks home in
order to foster their learning with the English language. In this specific question, 65% of
students did not realize that traditional assessment methods have the disadvantage of lacking
real-world context. Also, alternative assessment methods allow students to apply their skills
and knowledge within a context that more closely resembles problem solving and knowledge
application in most jobs or daily task.
44
Graphic #12
3- How long does it take you to be prepared for a traditional

written exam?
33% 30%
37%
1-10 HOURS 1-2 DAYS 2-5 DAYS
This chart reflects the time students normally take to be prepared for a traditional
written exam. 37% of students responded they take from 1 to 2 days. 33% of students
responded they take from 2 to 5 days and 30% of students responded they take from 1 to 10
hours only. As observed in the chart, most of the students invest a significant time whenever
they have a traditional written exam. However, it has been demonstrated that although
students invest a lot of time for a traditional test, the results tend to be low as explained in
the comparison graph #15 ( in the midterm and final evaluation result). According to
student’s opinions and experiences, time invested to study for a traditional assessment is
bored and tedious because they have to memorize content studied on the previous classes.
Besides that, they said that they just study for the exam; it means some of the contents studied
for traditional assessments may be useful for the exam only.
45
Graphic #13
4- Do you memorize things for a traditional assessment

task?
33%
67%
YES NO
In this chart, 67% of students responded they normally use memorization for a traditional
assessment task while 33% of students responded they do not. As known, traditional
assessment, practices are rooted in the behaviorist perspective of learning. This perspective
on learning is based on the idea that learning is a process of accumulating knowledge and
information. Due to this, there have been different researchers who have found the need to
implement alternative assessment in the classroom. For instance, Sidek (2012) explained that
traditional testing, which typically required students to comprehend and process specific data
had to be modified to include assessments with meaningful tasks that were more
communicative in nature. As observed in the chart, it can be said that students invest
important time preparing for traditional tests specifically memorizing things. Therefore,
performance competences is not fostered, so they focus on a behaviorist perspective of
learning.
46
Graphic #14
5- Would you like your teacher to use traditional

assessment this semester?
12% 20%
27%
41%
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE
This chart reflects if students would like their teacher to use traditional assessment during the
semester. 41% of students responded they agree, 27% of students responded they disagree,
20% of students responded they strongly agree while 12% of students responded they
strongly disagree. According to different researchers, alternative assessments assess higher-
order thinking skills where students have the opportunity to demonstrate what they learn.
This type of assessment focuses on the growth and the performance of the students. Based
on the results gathered in this chart, it can be assumed that since students have been exposed
mainly to traditional assessment they are not well aware of all the benefits alternative
assessment has in their speaking performance. Assessment is mainly divided into two:
traditional and alternative assessment. As mentioned above, traditional assessment has had
an important focus at the FLD. Even though, alternative assessment is getting more attention
in the recent years at the FLD, traditional assessment continues to be very predominant and
the percentage given to this assessment continues to be very significant. For instance, the
mid-term and final tests have the highest percentage, which is (60%) while class activities
and homework have a lower percentage, which is (40%). According to the syllabus of
Intermediate Intensive English I, the most common activities carried out at the FLD are
written quizzes, mid-term and final exams.
47
COMPARISON: MID TERM AND FINAL ORAL EVALUATION
Graphic #15
COMPARISON: AVERAGE OF THE MID TERM AND

FINAL ORAL EVALUATION
Final Oral Exam Mid Term Oral Exam
This chart reflects a comparison between the result of the average grade of the midterm and
the final oral evaluation that were part of this research. Both groups belonged to Intermediate
Intensive English course, semester II 2017, at the Foreign Language Department of the
University of El Salvador. It is worth mentioning that in the final oral evaluation; students
were assigned to work on tasks about alternative assessment before taking the final exam.
There was an important intervention from the researchers to develop different oral tasks
before students took the final oral evaluation. On the other hand, before the midterm
evaluation, students were assigned to work on tasks about traditional assessment and there
was no intervention from the researchers. As reflected by the chart, the midterm evaluation
has an average of 5.65 while the final oral evaluation has an average of 8.15, having a
difference of 2.5 points. There is an important difference in the outcomes between the
midterm and the final oral evaluations.
48
It can be assumed that all the tasks developed through alternative assessment using
different oral activities, strategies and techniques made this important difference. From these
results, it can be demonstrated that when applying different alternative assessment strategies
such as speeches, presentations, debates, role-plays and son on, the results of students’
speaking competences are higher. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the intervention before
the final oral evaluation lasted five weeks, which helped to get a significant difference of 2.5
points in the general AVERAGE. However, it can be assumed that if the intervention had
been longer, the results had been higher. Therefore, as mentioned above implementing
alternative assessment strategies helps students get a higher level about their speaking
competences.
49
TEACHERS’ INTERVIEW FINDINGS
ASSESSMENT PRACTICES AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ASSESSMENT

1. How do you define assessment?
The 100% of teachers interviewed have clear on what assessment means for them and the
purpose of it. The most common answer was the following. Assessment is a variety of
methods or tools that teachers use to evaluate, measure, and document the academic
readiness, learning progress, skill acquisition, or educational needs of students.
2. How do you assess the speaking competences of your students?
The 100% of teachers interviewed answered they assess their students’ speaking
competences through oral tasks such as presentations, retelling stories, role plays,
discussions, paraphrasing etc. They also mentioned they use rubrics.
3. Have you ever been in a situation that you did not feel satisfied or comfortable with
the assessment results of the speaking competences of your students?
The 100% of teachers interviewed answered they have experienced low results of their
students’ speaking competences. Teachers responded those results are mainly because
sometimes students do not feel motivated to speak and participate in the different tasks
assigned.
4. Have you experienced any change in the way you assess students due to low
performance of your students’ speaking competences?
The 100% of teachers interviewed answered that due to low results of their students’ speaking
competences, they have implemented some changes in assessment as a result of low results.
They also answered that after implementing different strategies of assessment, their students
have improved their speaking skills and therefore, students are getting better scores.
50
5. Have you ever taken any training on how to assess your students’ speaking
competences?
The 75% of teachers interviewed answered they have received some trainings on how to
assess their students’ speaking competences while the 25% responded they haven’t taken any
training. However, they said they would like to take some trainings on assessing their
students’ speaking competences.
6. How often do you assess your students’ speaking performance?
The 50% of teachers interviewed answered they assess their students’ speaking
performance every two weeks while 25% responded they do it every week. Only the 25%
responded they assess their students’ speaking performance every day.
FORMS OF ASSESSMENT
7. Suppose you had to choose a type of assessment for your course. Which type would
you choose and why?
The 50% of the teachers interviewed answered they would use alternative assessment mainly
such as oral tasks because they help students to improve their oral skills. The other 50%
responded they would use both alternative and traditional assessment. These teachers
responded they would use alternative assessment for oral performance and traditional
assessment for written exams to evaluate content.
8. What do you think about alternative assessment forms, such as peer assessment, self-
assessment, portfolio, speeches, and presentations?
The 100% of teachers interviewed answered that alternative assessment forms, such as peer
assessment, self-assessment, portfolio, speeches, and presentations are excellent and useful
forms of assessment. Therefore, they should be implemented in the evaluation system of the
intensive courses because they improve students’ oral proficiency.
51
USES OF ASSESSMENT
9. What type of speaking assessment do you include in your classroom?
The 100% of teachers interviewed answered that they normally do oral tasks such as role
plays, discussion questions, debates and that they use rubrics to evaluate students’
performance.
10. Are there any assessment tools that you would like to use but are not currently
using? Are there any that you are currently using but would like to replace?
The 50% of the teachers interviewed answered they would like to have computer labs while
50% responded they would like to implement other assessment strategies such as oral
portfolios.
11. How do your students respond to the assessment tools you use?
The 100% of the teachers interviewed answered their students like when they implement
different alternative assessment strategies and that they use rubrics to evaluate students’
performance.
12. Do your students get nervous or stressed about traditional assessment?
The 100% of the teachers interviewed answered their students get nervous when they are told
they will be evaluated, especially when they hear the word EXAM.
13. Do your students prefer any particular type of assessments?
The 100% of the teachers interviewed answered that when it is about SPEAKING, their
students like role plays and discussion questions to be evaluated.
14. In what ways does alternative assessment help students to reach a higher level of
their speaking competences compared with traditional assessment?
The 100% of the teachers interviewed answered that according to their experience, alternative
assessment helps students to reach an excellent oral proficiency since they are exposed to
real situations to practice their speaking skills and it’s a way to let students perform and use
their target language.
52
15. Do you have any recommendations for other instructors on how they should assess
their students’ speaking competences?
The 100% of the teachers interviewed answered that they can suggest other instructors to use
more alternative assessment strategies such as oral tasks, oral portfolios and role plays to
increase their students’’ oral proficiency. Another suggestions they provide is that they
should use RUBRICS.
16. In your opinion, does alternative assessment practices impact students’ level of
speaking competences?
The 100% of the teachers interviewed answered that alternative assessment practices impact
students’ level of speaking competences because they help them to be more competent in
speaking. Therefore, students become more accurate and with a higher level of fluency and
proficiency with their target language.
53
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the outcomes of this research; the following conclusions can be drawn:
• Alternative assessment activities such as (role-plays, presentations and the like), are
essential for developing a better oral proficiency among students.
• Students from Intermediate Intensive I courses recognize the influence and

usefulness of alternative assessment strategies. Students consider that their learning
could be better if alternative assessment strategies were used from the very beginning
of their learning process in order to improve their speaking competences.
• Most of the students in the control oral evaluation group got low results. It can be
concluded that they need the implementation of alternative assessment strategies in
their course in order to improve their speaking performance. On the other hand, in the
experimental oral evaluation group got higher results demonstrating more confidence,
cooperative work, enthusiasm and an outstanding participation in all the tasks
developed through alternative assessment strategies.
• The development of this research was carried out taking into account all the aspects
and strategies planned at the beginning. Thus, researches could conclude their
research with no troubles or bias because of their following of each stage in an
organized way. Besides that, it is remarkable researchers´ willingness to do a good
job, mostly because they were going to be in front of a group of students who were
enthusiastic about the implementation of alternative assessment strategies.
• Furthermore, researchers are satisfied with the job done by each member, because
they had to work hard in order to fulfill deadlines, and make an effort to attend and
prepare the sessions with the experimental oral evaluation group. This is because they
had to be organized and have a sequence of topics and activities to be done during the
five weeks of the intervention.
54
• To sum up, the whole project was successfully completed because of two main
reasons. The first one, researches’ commitment to develop a worthy job and the
second main reason was students and teachers’ collaboration, being this a crucial
element because they were the target population of the research.
55
RECOMMENDATIONS
This research involves mainly students and teachers; however, authorities of the Foreign
Language Department are also involved in this issue. In fact, they are in charge of making
decisions about the methodologies employed in the English courses and the tools for teaching
English. Therefore, this part presents different recommendations for teachers, students as
well as authorities.
A. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STUDENTS
• Students must find other ways of practicing alternative assessment strategies by

themselves. For instance, at home, with a friend, or in groups. This can be done by
searching and practicing different kind of activities that can help them to improve
their speaking competences.
• Students must make an effort when the teacher uses alternative assessment in class to
reach the required level of speaking competences they struggle with. Since alternative
assessment provides them better results, it will guarantee the success of students if
they make an effort to learn and participate in class.
• Students should evaluate themselves, very often; check their speaking competences
under alternative assessment, using self and peer evaluation.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHERS
• It is important for teachers to take into account the strong influence that alternative
assessment has on the development of the speaking skill. Therefore, they must
encourage students to use the different alternative assessment strategies such as
speeches, presentations, debates, role-plays and so on in the classroom but also at
home in order to clearly develop a higher level of their speaking competences.
• It is important that teachers include a variety of alternative assessments containing

different strategies to be included on the program of Intermediate Intensive I Course,
so that classes become more productive and efficient for developing students’
56
• It is necessary for teachers to realize that alternative assessment is strongly useful for
teaching efficiently at a foreign or second language context. This is especially
effective when students are making an effort to study a language like English.
C. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AUTHORITIES
• Authorities at the Foreign Language Department and the coordinator of the

Intermediate Intensive English I courses should advice teachers about the importance
of using alternative assessment in the English learning process. This is very
important to take into account since students find difficult to master the speaking
skill. By doing so, students will get higher results in their speaking performance.
• They also have to encourage teachers to design varied performance activities in the
classroom, so that alternative assessment becomes useful, interesting and motivating
for students to get a better speaking performance.
• Authorities should create a tutoring program for students on “How to be prepared for
your speaking alternative assessment strategies in the intensive courses”. Students
from fourth or fifth year could help student from first year with that tutoring program.
• Finally, it would be of a great importance to standardize the use of alternative

assessment strategies in all the intensive courses (from basic to advance) so that
students develop better and more effective speaking competences with the English
language at the FLD of the University of El Salvador. Ideally, the syllabus of all the
intensive courses should reflect a higher percentage regarding alternative assessment
than traditional assessment.
57
LIMITATIONS
During this research project, there were some inconveniences as described below.
• First, concerning to the teachers interviews, it was difficult to schedule an

appointment with some of the teachers because of their time availability or
willingness to cooperate. It took a lot of time to gather the data from teachers.
• Another obstacle faced during the research was the lack of availability from students
to collaborate in data collection.
• Another factor was time constraints among the colleagues to attend meetings to
elaborate the project.
• One important limitation that can be mentioned is that the study was developed in
five weeks. Researchers assume that if the study had taken more time; results could
be higher.
• Finally, concerning to the study limitability, this was just focused on speaking
competences of Intermediate Intensive English courses, semester II 2017, at the
Foreign Languages Department of the University of El Salvador. However, this study
could be expanded to other intensive courses and other skills.
58
REFERENCES
• Adamson, B., & Davison, C. (2003). Innovation in English language teaching in
Hong Kong primary schools: One step forwards, two steps sideways.
• Anderson, S. R. (1998). Why talk about different ways to grade? The shift from
traditional assessment to alternative assessment.
• Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices.
White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
• Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
• Byrnes, H. (2002). The role of task and Task-based Assessment in a content-oriented
collegiate foreign language curriculum.
• Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Approaches to communicative competence.
Singapore: Seameo Regional Language Centre
• Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools:
Perspectives from Hong Kong.
• Crooks, T. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review
of Educational Research.
• Cumming, J., & Maxwell, G. (2004). Assessment in Australian schools: Current
practice and trends. Assessment in Education.
• Dochy, F., & McDowell, L. (1997). Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in
Educational Evaluation.
• Fradd, S. and S. Hudelson. 1995. Alternative assessment: A process that promotes
collaboration and reflection.
• Huerta-Macias, A. (1995). Alternative assessment: responses to commonly asked
questions.
• Hughes, R. (2002). Teaching and Researching Speaking. New York: Pearson
Education.
• Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2010). Dynamic assessment in the classroom:
Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research.
• Leung, C. (2005) Classroom teacher assessment. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning.
59
• McNamara, T. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London; New York:
Longman.
• Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.).
London; New York: Arnold; Distributed in the United States of America by Oxford
University Press.
• Moon, T. R. & Callahan, C. M. (2001). Classroom performance assessment: What
should it look like in a standards-based classroom?
• O' Malley, M., & Pierce, L. V. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language
learners: Practical approaches for teachers.
• Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective
strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Phillips, E. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students' oral test performance
and attitudes. The Modern Language Journal, 76(1), 14-26.
• Pierce, L. V. and J. M. O'Malley. 1992. Performance and portfolio assessment for
language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education.
• Rea-Dickins, P. (2007). Classroom-based assessment: Possibility and pitfalls. In J.
Cummins, & C. Davison (eds.), International handbook of English language teaching
(pp.505-520). New York: Springer.
• Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice
(2nd ed.). Sydney: The McGraw Hill Companies.
• Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational
Researcher
• Shohamy, E. (1994). The role of language tests in the construction of second-
language acquisition theories.
• Sidek, H. M. (2012). EFL reading instruction: Communicative task-based approach.
• Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005, August 1). Students' Perceptions about
Evaluation and Assessment in Higher Education: A Review. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 325-341.
• Tamjid, N. H., & Birjandi, P. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy through self- and
peer assessment. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(5), 245-252.
60
• Underhill, N. (1987). Testing spoken language: A handbook of oral testing
techniques. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Wei, L. (2011). Formative Assessment in classrooms: Operational procedures.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 99-103. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.1.99-
103
• Yurdabakan, İ. (2011). The view of constructivist theory on assessment: Alternative
assessment methods in education. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of
Educational Sciences, 44(1), 51-57.
• Brualdi, A. (1998). Implementing performance assessment in the classroom. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation. Available online:
http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=6&n=2
• Dietel, R. J., Herman, J. L., & Knuth, R. A. (1991). What does research say about
assessment? NCREL, Oak Brook. Available online:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/stw_esys/4assess.htm
• Law, B. & Eckes, M. (1995). Assessment and ESL. Peguis publishers: Manitoba,
Canada. Niguidula, D. (1993). The digital portfolio: a richer picture of student
performance [online document]. CES National. Available online:
http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/225
61
GLOSSARY
• ACQUISITION: It is a subconscious process, and involves the innate language

acquisition device which accounts for children’s L1.
• AUTOMATIZATION: It refers to the process of making a skill routine through
practice.
• BEHAVIORISM: It is a matter of conditioning by means of imitation, practice,
reinforcement, and habituation, which constitute the paces of language acquisition.
• BEHAVIORIST THEORY: The following characteristics define the behaviorist
theory.
✓ All behavior is viewed as a response to stimuli. Behavior happens in
associative chains; in fact, all learning is associative in nature.
✓ Conditioning involves the strengthening of associations between a stimulus
and a response through reinforcement.
✓ Human language is a "sophisticated response system" acquired through
operant conditioning.
• BILINGUALISM: It refers to the ability to use two languages successfully.
• COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT: Krashen´s idea was that comprehensible input is not
only necessary, but sufficient, for second language learning to take place. A critical
concept for second-language development for students with and without learning
difficulties is comprehensible input. Comprehensible input means that students
should be able to understand the essence of what is being said or presented to them.
• COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE: It is a term in linguistics which refers to a
language user's grammatical knowledge of syntax, morphology, phonology and the
like, as well as social knowledge about how and when to use utterances appropriately.
• COMMUNICATIVE NEEDS: Discourse tasks push the organization of utterances,
in part to overcome communicative inadequacies. Linguistic means are acquired to
overcome limitations of earlier levels or stages of expression.
• DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT: It is a systematic attempt to apply the (ZPD) idea to
measurement of individual learner capacities , which “break with the traditional
dichotomy between assessment and instruction”
62
• FIRST LANGUAGE: It is the language or are the languages a person has learned
from birth or within the critical period, or that a person speaks the best and so is often
the basis for sociolinguistic identity.
• FEEDBACK: Including correction of L2 learner´s errors.
• FLUENCY: Hughes (2002) defines fluency as the ability to express oneself in an
intelligible, reasonable and accurate way without too much hesitation; otherwise the
communication will break down because listeners will lose their interest. Hedge
(2000: 54) adds also that: “The term fluency relates to the production and it is
normally reserved for speech. It is the ability to link units of speech together with
facility and without strain, inappropriate shyness, or undue hesitation.”
• FOREIGN LANGUAGE: It is one not widely used in the learners’ immediate social
context which might be used for future travel or other cross cultural communication
situations, or studied as a curricular requirement or elective in school, but with no
immediate or necessary practical application.
• FOSSILIZATION: In linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA), refers to
the often-observed loss of progress in the acquisition of a second language (L2),
following a period where learning occurred, despite regular exposure to and
interaction with the L2 and regardless of any learner motivation to continue.
• INFORMAL L2 LANGUAGE: it takes place in naturalistic contexts.
• INPUT: The primary factor affecting language acquisition appears to be the input
that the learner receives. Stephen Krashen took a very strong position on the
importance of input, asserting that comprehensible input is all that is necessary for
second-language acquisition.
• INNATE ABILITY: It refers to the natural ability to acquire a language.
• LANGUAGE ACQUISITION DEVICE (lad): Chomsky referred to the child’s
innate general language learning ability as the Language Acquisition Device (LAD).
He claims that children have a blueprint in the brain that allows them to recognize the
structure-dependence of language and to manipulate these structures.
• LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY: It is related to linguistic proficiency is the ability
of an individual to speak or perform in an acquired language. As theories among
pedagogues as to what constitutes proficiency go, here is little consistency as to how
63
different organizations classify it. Additionally, fluency and language competence are
generally recognized as being related, but separate controversial subjects.
• LEARNING: It is a conscious process and is exemplified by the L2 learning which
takes place in many classroom contexts.
• LINGUISTICS: It emphasize the characteristics of the differences and similarities
in the languages that are being learned, and the linguistic competence (underlying
knowledge) and linguistic performance (actual production) of learners at various
stages of acquisition.
• LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE: It is the system of linguistic knowledge possessed
by native speakers of a language. It is in contrast to the concept of linguistic
performance, the way the language system is used in communication. The concept
was first introduced by Noam Chomsky as part of the foundations for his generative
grammar, but it has since been adopted and developed by other linguists, particularly
those working in the generativist tradition. In the generativist tradition competence is
the only level of language that is studied, because this level gives insights into the
Universal Grammar that generativists see as underlying all human language systems.
• LINGUISTIC PERFORMANCE: The unconscious knowledge of grammar that
allows a speaker to use and understand a language. Contrast with linguistic
performance. As used by Noam Chomsky and other linguists, linguistic competence
is not an evaluative term. Rather, it refers to the innate linguistic knowledge that
allows a person to match sounds and meanings.
• MOTIVATION: Internal and external factors that stimulate desire and energy in
people to be continually interested and committed to a job, role or subject, or to make
an effort to attain a goal. Motivation results from the interaction of both conscious
and unconscious factors such as the (1) intensity of desire or need, (2) incentive or
reward value of the goal, and (3) expectations of the individual and of his or her peers.
These factors are the reasons one has for behaving a certain way. An example is a
student that spends extra time studying for a test because he or she wants a better
grade in the class.
• NATIVE LANGUAGE: A speaker who uses a first language or mother tongue. In
most cases, the language that a person acquires in early childhood because it is spoken
64
in the family and/or it is the language of the region where the child lives. Also known
as a mother tongue, first language, or arterial language.
• ORAL PROFICIENCY: It is defined as the ability or competence students get to
communicate accurately with two or more persons in different contexts and at
different levels of the language.
• PRIMARY LANGUAGE: The term "primary language" refers to the first language
a person learns in childhood. Even when people go on to speak other languages, their
primary language shapes their speaking skills and habits. Another term for this is
"native language."
• PRIOR KNOWLEDGE: It refers to the practice of beginning a lesson by bringing
up topics with which the students already have some familiarity. By putting the
upcoming lesson material into a familiar context for the students, the teacher is giving
them a context into which they can then assimilate the new information and
understanding.
• SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (SLA) refers both to the study of
individuals and groups who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first
one as young children, and to the process of learning that language.
• SECOND LANGUAGE: It is typically an official or societally dominant language
needed for education, employment, and other basic purposes. It is often acquired by
minority group members or immigrants who speak another language natively.
• TARGET LANGUAGE: It refers to any language that is the aim or goal of learning.
65
ANNEXES
66
ANNEX 1
Students’ questionnaire
SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
MASTER’S DEGREE IN ENGLISH DIDACTICS
RESEARCH: To what extent does alternative assessment have advantages upon traditional
assessment in the outcome of students speaking competences in Intermediate Intensive
English courses, semester II 2017, at the FLD of the University of El Salvador?
General Objective: To find out which type of assessment students prefer, whether
alternative assessment or traditional assessment.
Directions: please read each question, and answer it sincerely based on your knowledge
about alternative assessment and traditional assessment. Mark the best answer for you.
PART I
1-Which of the following assessment strategies are mostly used in your classroom?
a) portfolio b) quiz c) speech
d) presentation e) self-assessment f) peer-assessment
g) role play h) written exams i) something else,
please state ____________________________________________
2- What kind of assessment strategies you find the most useful in order to develop your
speaking competences? Please, state three of them grading them from 1 to 3 (1 that you
find the most useful among them)
1.______________________ 2. ____________________ 3. ____________________
3- What do you think about alternative assessment strategies such as presentations, portfolios
and speeches in order to develop a higher level of your speaking competences …?
_________________________________________________________________________
4- What do you think about traditional assessment methods such as quizzes and written
exams?
_________________________________________________________________________
5-Which type of assessment allows you to have a better performance of your knowledge
about your speaking competences of the English language?
A) Alternative assessment B) traditional assessment
PART II ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT
1- How often do you use some form of alternative assessment for example rubrics, individual
project, group project, class discussion, presentation, demonstrations or performance tasks?
a) Every day/ week b) Every month c) Every school term
d) Every school year e) If none of the above mentioned, please state
_________________________________
67
Please, circle the comment that best describes your attitude towards the following
statements:
2- Excellent results about my speaking competences can be expected from alternative
assessment.
a. Strongly Agree b. Agree c. Disagree d. Strongly Disagree
3- Alternative assessment adequately measures the learning outcomes of my speaking
competences.
4- Results achieved on standardized tests demonstrate an objective picture of my progress
in this course.
5- Immediate feedback, formative and summative assessment do improve the instruction
and affect positively in myself.
6- Portfolio presents the assessment strategy that gives me an objective picture of my
development over time.
7- Alternative assessment presents an essential part of the international education for its
flexibility and adjusting to the student learning styles and individual development.
8- Alternative assessment should be used in this course in order to improve students’
PART III TRADITIONAL ASSESSMENT (Choose only one option)
1- How often are you evaluated in form of traditional assessment (for example Standardized
textbook or teacher-made tests?
a) Every day/ week b) Every month c) Every school term
d) Every school year e) If none of the above mentioned, please state
_________________________________
2- Do you like multiple choice, yes/no, true false, essay questions, take home etc...?
YES____ NO____
3- How long does it take you to be prepared for a traditional written exam?
a) 1-10 hours b) 1- 2 days b) 2- 5 days
4- Do you memorize things for a traditional assessment?
a) Yes b) no
5- I would like my teacher to use traditional Assessment this semester?
68
ANNEX 2
Teacher’s interview
SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
Objective: The following interview has been designed to gather important information of
teachers about assessment practices developed at the FLD. It will help researchers to
determine if alternative assessment helps students to reach a higher level of their speaking
competences compared with traditional assessment.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Date: _________________Age:___________ Where did you graduate from? ___________
Subjects you teach: ________________________________________________________
How long have you been teaching English at the FLD? _____________________________
Assessment Practices and Knowledge about Assessment
1. How do you define assessment?
2. How do you assess the speaking competences of your students?
3. Have you ever been in a situation that you did not feel satisfied or comfortable with the
assessment results of the speaking competences of your students?
4. Have you experienced any change in the way you assess students due to low performance
of your students’ speaking competences?
5. Have you ever taken any training on how to assess your students’ speaking competences?
6. How often do you assess your students’ speaking performance?
Forms of Assessment
7. Suppose you had to choose a type of assessment for your course. Which type would you
choose and why?
8. What do you think about alternative assessment forms, such as peer assessment, self-
assessment, portfolio, speeches, and presentations?
Uses of Assessment
9. What type of speaking assessment do you include in your classroom?
10. Are there any assessment tools that you would like to use but are not currently using?
Are there any that you are currently using but would like to replace?
11. How do your students respond to the assessment tools you use?
12. Do your students get nervous or stressed about traditional assessment?
69
13. Do your students prefer any particular type of assessments?
14. In what ways does alternative assessment help students to reach a higher level of their
speaking competences compared with traditional assessment?
15. Do you have any recommendations for other instructors on how they should assess their
students’ speaking competences?
16. In your opinion, does alternative assessment practices impact students’ level of
speaking competences?
70
ANNEX 3
Rubric to evaluate students in the experimental group.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT
2017
Student’s Name: _________________________________________Group: __
Teacher’s name: _________________________________Date: ___________

ORAL EVALUATION RUBRIC
CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 Score
Partial completion of
the task; content Completion of the
Minimal completion somewhat adequate task; content Superior completion
of the task; content and mostly appropriate; ideas of the task; content
Task Completion frequently appropriate; basic adequately rich; ideas with
undeveloped and/or ideas expressed but developed with elaboration and
somewhat repetitive. with very little some elaboration detail.
elaboration and and detail.
detail.
Content mostly Content
Content barely Content readily
comprehensible, comprehensible,
comprehensible, comprehensible
requiring requiring minimal
requiring frequent requiring no
interpretation; interpretation;
Comprehensibility interpretation; interpretation;
pronunciation; pronunciation does
pronunciation may pronunciation
pronunciation may not occasionally
frequently interfere enhances
occasionally interfere interfere with
with communication. communication.
with communication. communication.
Predominant of
Use of complete Emerging variety of
complete yet Variety of complete
sentences, some complete sentences;
Level of Discourse repetitive sentences; sentences and of
repetitive; few some cohesion
no or almost no cohesion devices.
cohesion devices. devices.
cohesion devices.
Speech sustained
Speech halting and Speech choppy and or
most of the time;
uneven with long slow with frequent Speech sustained
some hesitation but
Fluency pauses or incomplete pauses; few or no throughout with few
manages to
thoughts; little incomplete thoughts; pauses or stumbling.
continue and
sustained speech. sustained speech.
complete thoughts.
Somewhat inadequate Adequate and Rich use of
Inadequate and/or
and/or inaccurate use accurate use of vocabulary with
Vocabulary inaccurate use of
of vocabulary and too vocabulary for this some idiomatic
vocabulary.
basic for this level. level. expressions.
Almost no
A lot of grammatical Some grammatical A few grammatical
Mechanics grammatical errors
errors present. errors present. errors present.
present.
Final Score
71
ANNEX 4
Syllabus intensive intermediate English I
FOREIGN LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT
1. GENERAL ASPECTS
1.1. COURSE NAME INTENSIVE INTERMEDIATE ENGLISH I
1.2. CODE IIE 214
1.3. PRE-REQUISITE INTENSIVE BASIC ENGLISH
1.4. CREDITS 8
1.5. MAJOR STUDY PLAN Licenciatura en Idioma Inglés (Plan Modificado 1999)
1.6. ACADEMIC YEAR AND SEMESTER II – 2017
1.7. LEVEL AND AREA First Academic Year / Language and Skills Development Area
(LASDA)
1.8. ACADEMIC UNIT TEACHING THE SUBJECT Foreign Language Department
1.9. SCHOOL Science and Humanities
1.10. DURATION OF THE SEMESTER 16 weeks
1.11. NUMBER OF WORKING HOURS AND WEEKS 16 weeks/160 hours
1.12. DATE AND AGREEMENT OF THE C.S.U. STUDY PLAN 70-99-2003 (17-08-
2001)
1.13. PROFESSORS: Group Schedule
César Guzmán 01 6:00 – 8:00 a.m.
Ricardo Fuentes 02 6:00 – 8:00 a.m.
Claudia de Guzmán 03 10:00 – 12:00 m
Ricardo Cabrera 04 1:00 – 3:00 p.m.
Alexander Bruno 05 5:00 – 7:00 p.m.
Mabel Mendoza 06 6:00 – 8:00 a.m.
Lilian Olivares 07 10:00 – 12:00 m
Ludwig Cornejo 08 10:00 – 12:00 m
Mathew Alvarado 09 1:00 – 3:00 p.m.
Mayra Matute 10 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
COURSE DESCRIPTION
Intensive Intermediate English I is the second of five English language courses addressed to the
students in B. A in Teaching English and also to the B. A in Modern Languages. Instruction in
this course will take students to the A2 proficiency level, according to the Common European
Framework (CEFR) guidelines. This course will promote the development of the communicative
competence by developing the four macro skills: Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing. In
addition, the grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation sub-skills will be promoted in the
classroom to make sure effective communication is achieved.
72
2. OBJECTIVES
At the end of this course, students will have consolidated an elementary level of proficiency
described in the A2 CEFR guidelines:
Students:
• Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate
relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography,
employment).
• Can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of
information on familiar and routine matters.
• Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and
matters in areas of immediate need and can understand the main points of clear standard input
on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, and leisure.
3. METHODOLOGY
Communicative language teaching makes use of real-life situations that need
communication. The teacher sets up a situation that students are likely to encounter in
real life. Unlike the other methods or approaches which rely on repetition and drills, the
communicative approach can leave students in suspense as to the outcome of a class
exercise, which will vary according to their reactions and responses. Teachers in
communicative classrooms will find themselves talking less and listening more becoming
active facilitators of their students' learning. The teacher sets up pedagogical tasks and
real-life tasks, but because the students' performance is the goal, the teacher must step
back and observe, sometimes acting as a referee or a monitor. A classroom during a
communicative activity is far from quiet, however. The students do most of the speaking,
and frequently the scene of a classroom during a communicative exercise is active, with
students leaving their seats to complete a task.There will also be two tasks that will be carried
out throughout the semester. Another important aspect will be homework assignments. Open
Mind 2 second edition textbook and workbook by Macmillan Publishers, 2014 will be covered
mainly during this semester.
EVALUATION
Written Evaluation 1 * 10%
Oral Task 1 10%
Mid-term Oral Exam 20%
Oral Task 2 10%
Oral and Written Assignments 10%
Final Oral Exam 20%
100%
*(Listening, Vocabulary, Grammar, Reading, and Writing)
73
4. TIME TABLE
WEEK DATE ACTIVITY WEEK DATE ACTIVITY
Aug. 7 Unit 1 9 Unit 7
8 Unit 1 10 10 Unit 7
1 9 Unit 2 11 WRITTEN EVALUATION 2
10 Unit 2 12 Unit 8
14 Unit 2 16 Unit 8
15 Unit 2 11 17 Unit 8
2 16 Unit 2 18 Unit 8
17 Unit 3 19 Unit 8
21 Unit 3 23 Unit 9
3 22 Unit 3 24 Unit 9
23 Unit 3 12 25 Unit 9
24 Unit 3 26 Unit 9
28 WRITTEN EVALUATION 1 30 Unit 9
4 29 Unit 4 Nov. 31 ORAL TASK 2
30 Unit 4 13 1 ORAL TASK 2
31 Unit 4 2 Day of the Dead
Sept. 4 ORAL TASK 1 6 ORAL TASK 2
5 ORAL TASK 1 7 ORAL TASK 2
5 6 ORAL TASK 1 14 8 ORAL TASK 2
7 ORAL TASK 1 9 Unit 12
11 ORAL TASK 1 13 Unit 12
6 12 Unit 5 15 14 Unit 12
13 Unit 5 15 Unit 12
14 Unit 6 16 Unit 12
18 Unit 6 20 REVIEW
7 19 Unit 6 16 21 REVIEW
20 Unit 6 22 WRITTEN EVALUATION 3
21 Unit 6 23 ORAL FINAL EXAM
25 MID-TERM ORALEXAM 27 ORAL FINAL EXAM
8 26 MID-TERM ORAL EXAM 17 28 ORAL FINAL EXAM
27 MID-TERM ORAL EXAM 29 ORAL FINAL EXAM
28 MID-TERM ORAL EXAM 30 ORAL FINAL EXAM
Oct. 2 MID-TERM ORAL EXAM
9 3 Unit 7
4 Unit 7
5 Unit 7
74
CLASSROOM POLICIES
1. CLASS PARTICIPATION AND USE OF ENGLISH: Students’ active participation is

required. English must be spoken inside and outside classes.
2. CLASS TIME: Students are required to come to class on time.
3. COURSE MATERIALS: It is MANDATORY for all students to have their own required
materials for attending classes.
4. IN-CLASS STUDENTS’ BEHAVIOR: At the teacher’s discretion, the students who show
a disruptive behavior in the class activities may be asked to leave the classroom.
5. MISSED EVALUATIONS: Requests presenting a genuine written justification for missed
evaluation should be made within the next three days following it. Quizzes are NOT made
up.
6. NO GROUP CHANGES ARE ALLOWED.
7. Turn cellular phones off - It is very distracting to hear someone’s phone go off in
class. Texting in class is prohibited.
8. Avoid eating in class. It is distracting to others. Students are expected to maintain
cleanliness in the classroom. Please take beverage other refuse with you when you
leave.
9. The only acceptable reason for leaving during class is for a personal or family
emergency.
10. Assignments must be turned in on the due date.
From Reglamento de Gestión Académico Administrativo de la UES
Art. 147. El estudiante para tener derecho a las evaluaciones en cada unidad de aprendizaje,
deberá tener una asistencia a las actividades académicas mayor o igual al 75%.
Art. 150. Si el estudiante no se presenta a una evaluación por causa justificada, éste podrá
solicitar por escrito su realización en forma diferida a más tardar dentro del tercer día
hábil de haberse realizado ésta, ante el jefe de departamento o director de escuela, quien
resolverá a más tardar al día siguiente hábil de presentada la solicitud, concediéndola o
denegándola.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
➢ Bowen, Tim. Open Mind, Level 2. Second Edition. Macmillan Publishers, 2014.
(Textbook, workbook, video and CD ROM)
➢ Fuchs Marjorie, Focus on Grammar, Pearson Education.
➢ L.G. Alexander. English Grammar Practice. Longman Group. UK. 1998.
➢ Murphy, Raymond. English Grammar in use. Cambridge University Press.
N.Y., USA. 1994.
➢ Powell, Debra. Grammar Practice. Pearson and Longman.
➢ Vince, Michael. English Grammar in Context. Macmillan Education. 2008.
➢ Zemack, Dorothy, College Writing, Macmillan Education, 2003.
75
ANNEX 5
BUDGET
Thesis project –Master Degree in Didactics of the English Language
Thesis Project expenses : 6 months
Element Amount
Food $200.00
Transportation/ Gasoline/ Parking $200.00
Cellphone calls and messages between researchers $100.00
Internet use $150.00
Papers/magazines $50.00
Copies $20.00
Printings (pdf books and other) $50.00
Ink $10.00
Other expenses $50.00
Total $830.00
76
PICTURES
77
78
79

Action Research Example JUNE 2018

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

Action Research Example JUNE 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF EL SALVADOR

SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

MASTER IN DIDACTICS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT COMPARED WITH

Graduated Work Presented to Obtain the Degree of:

MAIN CAMPUS, APRIL 2018

UNIVERSITY OF EL SALVADOR AUTHORITIES

UNIVERSITY OF EL SALVADOR SOCIAL SCIENCES AUTHORITIES

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

MASTER IN DIDACTICS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

SANTOS EDITH BAIRES AREVALO

the blessing of finishing my master, Degree.

Special thanks to:

follow in this gorgeous field of teaching.

throughout all my educational endeavors.

Moreover, I would like to express my gratitude to my professors and thesis advisor

if they had not been so supportive, encouraging, and positive to me.

cooperation with my thesis.

ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION OF DATA AND OUTCOMES............................................ 33

BA: Bachelor of Arts

CEFR: Common European Framework

EFL: English as Foreign Language

ESL: English as a Second Language

ELT: English Language Teaching

FLD: Foreign Language Department

TBA: Task-based Assessment

LAD: Language Acquisition Device

L1: Language Acquisition

SLA: Second Language acquisition

L2: Second Language

UES: University of El Salvador

The research topic “The effectiveness of alternative assessment compared with

Traditional Assessment practices are rooted in the behaviorist perspective of learning.

The main problem proposed to develop the study has to do with:

- The disadvantages of using traditional assessment and how it affects students

- The use of traditional assessment when assessing students speaking competences.

- The comparison of alternative assessment with traditional assessment specifically in

Important information about the research project:

Time and place:

This research about “The effectiveness of alternative assessment compared with

This research was addressed to a group of students of Intermediate Intensive English

Assessment is one of the most important phases in English learning process.

Traditional assessments vs. Alternative assessments.

Traditional Assessment practices are rooted in the behaviorist perspective of learning.

There has been a movement from traditional assessment toward alternative

More authentic assessment tools, such as portfolios, independent projects, journals

Formative Assessment using self- and peer-evaluation forms is another viable

Advantages for speaking assessment

First, classroom assessment is more likely to offer opportunities for teachers to

Third, classroom assessment can serve as a powerful motivation factor. Crooks

- To measure the advantages of using alternative assessment to calibrate students

- To compare the role of alternative assessment and traditional assessment when

- To find out if alternative assessment is more effective compared with traditional

This quasi-experimental study involves a questionnaire and an interview respectively.

c) Data Collection Procedures

In order to do the data analysis, Excel program was used.

e) Methods of Data Analysis

f) Piloting the instruments

1-Which of the following assessment strategies are mostly used

g) role play h) written exams

4- Which type of assessment allows you to have a

A) Alternative assessment B) Traditional assessment

Teacher’s name: _______________________Date: _