1 / 5

FOAI – III

FOAI – III. GROUP A: Hakan Güven (Bilkent Univ.) Adnan Pamukçu (Bahçeşehir Univ.) Nurhan Davrandı (EMU) Burcu Dede (İzmir University) Esra Çelik Soydan ( Özyeğin Univ.). Scenario 1:.

maris
Download Presentation

FOAI – III

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FOAI – III GROUP A: Hakan Güven (Bilkent Univ.) Adnan Pamukçu (Bahçeşehir Univ.) Nurhan Davrandı (EMU) Burcu Dede (İzmir University) Esra Çelik Soydan ( Özyeğin Univ.)

  2. Scenario 1: • While watching a sample of a speaking test video/audio you notice that the interlocutor disadvantages the test takers by setting tasks vaguely/using unclear language/creating an uncomfortable test environment/ not following the prescribed timing. What actions would you take?

  3. PREVENTATIVE • Training • mock exams to train • clear rubrics • clear timing • script to follow • AFTERWARDS • That interlocutor should be approached and talked about that issue. • Instead of accusing the interlocutor, the interlocutor can be guided to reflect on the process. • Not in front of the student. • If the same interlocutor continues to do the same mistakes, this role can be given to another person. • The interlocutor can be given a reflection time to watch himself or herself and reflect on it.

  4. Scenario 2: • You had limited time to prepare and conduct a writing standardization session and were not able to identify and include problem scripts such as students with bad handwriting, excessively short or long responses, responses which indicate that the student misunderstood the task. While the marking is carried out individual markers approach and ask you how they should mark in such cases. What actions would you take?

  5. PREVENTATIVE • Adequate time should be allocated for standardisation papers. • Samples should be chosen well. • Representative papers for some scenarios should be included in the standardization procedure. • AFTERWARDS • chain of information. • All the markers should be in designated rooms. Therefore, the markers should be informed about the problems. • Second markers can be informed about the problem. • Quick check of the papers after marking to see whether all the problematic papers were treated equally. • Borderline papers should be marked again. • Extreme cases: Re-standardization after the first marking.

More Related