|  e-ISSN: 2147-5156

Original article | Turkish Journal of Teacher Education 2014, Vol. 3(2) 90-98

Structure and Typology of the Greek State Foreign Language Exam System Marking Scheme for Oral Production

Dimitris Zeppos

pp. 90 - 98   |  Manu. Number: tujted.2014.007

Published online: December 31, 2014  |   Number of Views: 19  |  Number of Download: 530


Abstract

The Greek State Foreign Language Exam, KPG, carried out in November 2013 introduced a new marking sheet for the assessment of oral production of KPG-candidates based on a five-point Likert-type resembling response format. The paper introduces the KPG-format response sheet and compares it with the theoretical specifications of Likert scales through a bibliographic review of respective studies. The conclusion is reached that the KPG-format does not represent a genuine Likert or Likert-type scale but a Discrete-Visual-Analog-Scale-(DVAS) Response-Format resembling a Likert scale, which functions as an input device of performance descriptors for the assessment of oral production of foreign language examinees.

Keywords: Assessment, discrete visual analog scale, KPG, likert scale, response Format


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Zeppos, D. (2014). Structure and Typology of the Greek State Foreign Language Exam System Marking Scheme for Oral Production. Turkish Journal of Teacher Education, 3(2), 90-98.

Harvard
Zeppos, D. (2014). Structure and Typology of the Greek State Foreign Language Exam System Marking Scheme for Oral Production. Turkish Journal of Teacher Education, 3(2), pp. 90-98.

Chicago 16th edition
Zeppos, Dimitris (2014). "Structure and Typology of the Greek State Foreign Language Exam System Marking Scheme for Oral Production". Turkish Journal of Teacher Education 3 (2):90-98.

References

    Boone, H. N. J., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing likert data. Journal of Extension, 50(2), 30.

    Brown, A. (2007). An investigationof the rating process in the IELTS oral interview. IELTS Collected Papers, 49–84.

    Brown, J. D. (2011). Likert items and scales of measurement? JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 15(March), 10–24.

    Carifio, J., & Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten Common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about likert scales and likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106–116.

    Chomeya, R. (2010). Quality of psychology test between likert scale 5 and 6 points rungson chomeya department of educational psychology and guidance, Faculty of Education, Journal of Social Sciences, 6(3), 399–403.

    Clason, D., & Dormody, T. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31–35.

    Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data : A conceptual , empirical , and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3).

    Garland, R. (1991). The Mid-point on a rating scale : is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2(RN 3), 3–6.

    Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, Interpreting, and reporting cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for likert-type scales, (1992), 82–88.

    Grosshans, W., & Chelimsky, E. (1993). Developing and using questionnaires. United States General Accounting Office (GAO).

    Hitchcock, A., & Porter, K. (2004). The Likert Scale. Methodology, 7–10.

    Karavas, E., & Delieza, X. (2009). On site observation of KPG oral examiners: Implications for oral examiner training and evaluation, 3(1), 51–77.

    Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22, 5–55. doi:2731047

    Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education : Theory and Practice, 15(5), 625–32.

    O’Sullivan, B., Weir, C. J., & Saville, N. (2002). Using observation checklists to validate speaking-test tasks. Language Testing, 19(1), 33–56.

    Pearse, N. (2011). Deciding on the scale granularity of response categories of likert type scales : the case of a 21-point scale. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(2), 159–171.

    Powers, D. E. (2010). The case for a comprehensive, four-skills assessment of english-language proficiency. Educational Testing Service, (14).

    Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., Hoof, A. Van, Hart, H. ’t, Verbogt, T. F. M. A., & Vollebergh, W. A. M. (2000). Adolescents’ midpoint responses on Likert-type scale items : neutral or missing values? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12(2), 208–216.

    Roca-Varela, L., & Palacios, I. M. (2013). How are spoken skills assessed in proficiency tests of general English as a Foreign Language? A preliminary survey 1. Interantional Journal of English Studies, 13(2), 53–68.

    Uebersax, J. (2006). Likert scales: dispelling the confusion. Statistical Methods for Rater Agreement Website. Retrieved from http://john-uebersax.com/stat/likert.htm

    Valax, P. (2011). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A critical analysis of its impact on a sample of teachers and curricula within and beyond Europe. University of Waikato.

    Van Elst, H. (2013). Foundations of Descriptive and Inferential Statistics. Karlshochschule International University.

    Wakita, T. (2004). Assessment of the distance between categories in rating scales by using the item response model. Shinrigaku Kenkyu : The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 75(4), 331–338.

    Wylie, E. (2002). An overview of the International Second Language Proficiency Ratings. ISLPR Overview. Griffith University: Centre for Applied Linguistics and Languages (CALL).

    Κεντρική Επιτροπή Θεμάτων - Central Board of Examination KPG. (2013). Εξέταση προφορικού λόγου επιπέδου Γ (Γ1&Γ2) - Αγγλικά - Νοέμβρης 2013. Αθήνα: Υπουργειο Παιδειας και Θρησκευμάτων.