bilingual teachers’ assessments in private universities

1、<p>　　Bilingual Teachers’ Assessments in Private Universities</p><p>　?。∣xbridge College, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, 650041, China） </p><p>　　Abstract. The purpo

2、se of this study is to investigate the assessment approaches of bilingual teachers in private universities in China. The current assessment method is firstly introduced and then analyzed. A questionnaire thereafter was u

3、sed to see how bilingual teachers see or saw their professional practice through self-assessment. Most bilingual teachers hold that bilingual teachers’ assessment should be developed in a formative way that tends to help

4、 their professional development and, if p</p><p>　　Key words: bilingual teachers, formative assessment, summative assessment, professional development. </p><p>　　1 Introduction </p><p

5、>　　Bilingual education (Chinese-English) has been implemented in China for nearly one decade to meet the ever-increasing requirements of either globalization or technology revolution, but we still lack of general idea

6、s about how the bilingual education should be undertaken. Among issues related to this question, how to acquire competent bilingual teachers takes the priority. Thus what are the characteristics of competent bilingual te

7、achers, what bilingual teachers are in need of and how to help imp</p><p>　　Thus what we need now is to think about the proper way to enhance bilingual teachers’ quality in a general way. Among many approach

8、es that educators have researched, teachers’ assessment is one of the solutions we can refer to. With regards to the purposes involved in the assessment, they can be divided into two broad categories: those purposes defi

9、ned as summative and those defined as formative. Formative teacher assessments are used to diagnose teachers’ relative strengths and weaknesses and t</p><p>　　2.1 Current Assessment Methods </p><p

10、>　　Bilingual education in private university is often the attraction to recruit new students, thus much attention is paid to students’ satisfaction for teachers’ performance at class. Teachers’ assessment in private u

11、niversities is undertaken in a way that takes the students’ evaluation as the core. Specifically, students value the teaching quality in the following items (10 score by each): teaching behavior and seriousness, pronunci

12、ation with accuracy and fluency, imparting with focus and innovati</p><p>　　2.2 Analysis </p><p>　　2.2.1 Two Weak Assumptions </p><p>　　Any assessment is a judgment and should be as

13、 objective as possible. The assessment is based on the two assumptions that lead it to lack of persuasiveness. To a great extent, the assessment takes the assumption that students are objective experts who are profession

14、al enough to value teachers’ performance accurately. In addition, students are far less likely to be deemed as the objective assessors because they may be influenced by many distinct individual factors in certain aspects

15、 as social, cul</p><p>　　2.2.2 Simplified and Outdated Criteria and Limited Expertise </p><p>　　The assessment used simplifies teaching process by taking some vague pinpoints like teachers’ beha

16、vior and teaching skills to describe how teachers are expected to behave in working environment. Developing such framework is more problematic for teachers than for professionals in many other fields, because knowledge o

17、f teachers can only explain teachers’ activities in particular working environment, instead of teaching quality. Furthermore, if we have a close look at these standards, we can concl</p><p>　　Teaching, alone

18、 among the professions, makes the same demands on novices as on experienced teachers, although the job of teaching for a novice is identical to that of a seasoned veteran. It is very important to remember, however, that

19、from the standpoint of public, it is not possible and reasonable to expect a skilled level of teaching in every classroom. So the procedures used to evaluate beginning teachers should be identical with regards to the fai

20、rness and objectiveness. The assessment used </p><p>　　2.2.4 No Differentiation between Subject Teachers and Bilingual Teachers </p><p>　　Bilingual teachers must subject matter experts and forei

21、gn language teachers. If students are poor in language fluency, they tend to more difficult to understand what teachers perform in class. Under such circumstances, the students-centered assessment certainly favored less

22、to bilingual teachers and that is the reason why bilingual teachers are scored far less than subject teachers. </p><p>　　Thus, the current assessment practice in private universities takes some insufficient

23、criteria to value teachers’ performance in formal settings from students-centered views and the board of universities thus makes some consequential decisions without taking teacher’s professional development into account

24、. After rounds of the assessment, however, teachers might lose their dedication and take their service to students less seriously. Given the limitations of most systems, many educators regard te</p><p><b

25、>　　3 Method </b></p><p>　　This research, on the contrary, aims to see how bilingual teachers evaluate their own professional practice. Both experienced and beginning bilingual teachers (n=40) in eco

26、nomical and management department participated in this research. We will describe how the data were collected and how the analysis is made. 3.1 Data Collection </p><p>　　A questionnaire was undergone consist

27、ing of four parts. The first part encompassed general questions about background variable of the bilingual teachers: sex, age, prior teacher education, and years of experience of teaching and student classes. In the seco

28、nd part of this questionnaire, the bilingual teachers were asked to represent their professional practice by awarding a total of 100 points to such four domains of this practice with 25 points each as formative assessmen

29、t focuses . 　　Prior ea</p><p>　　● Planning and preparation includes comprehensive understanding of the content to be taught, knowledge of the students’ backgrounds, and designing instruction and assessment.

30、 </p><p>　　● the classroom environment addresses teachers’ skill in establishing an environment conductive to learning, including both the physical and interpersonal aspects of the environment. </p>&

31、lt;p>　　The third part of this questionnaire consisted of 12 items based on only language teaching in bilingual education. With these items we wanted to know the difficulties bilingual teachers sensed when making forei

32、gn language accessing to students in four domains mentioned above. The following is one of the examples items: </p><p>　　●Domain1: “ I find difficulties in selecting goals of foreign language teaching part s

33、ince variables of students foreign language backgrounds; </p><p>　　The last part of this questionnaire also consisted of 12 items, 3 for each domain. Bilingual teachers were asked to what extent they agreed

34、with the domains on a four-point scale, ranging from disagreement to complete agreement and their willingness to enhance teaching quality. </p><p>　　3.2 Participants </p><p>　　A questionnaire wa

35、s sent to bilingual teachers from 8 private universities in the north and south parts of China. The teachers had to have a bilingual teaching experience in universities for at least two years. In total, 70 questionnaires

36、 were sent out and 40 were returned, a response rate of 57%; 25 female and 15 male bilingual teachers involved in the research; prior to bilingual teaching, 82% teachers are language teachers and 18% are subject teachers

37、 in economic and management; 51% bilingual</p><p>　　3.3 Results’ Analysis </p><p>　　Given the number of items and complexity of the concepts of each domain, the reliabilities of the research are

38、 accepted. The both quantitative and qualitative analyses of data are as followed. </p><p>　　In the second part of the questionnaire, every domain contains equally 5 items and is assigned 5 score to each, wi

39、th average means 3.42, 2.13, 2.32 and 3.04. All participants generally appreciated their own professional practice but were far less satisfied. In particular, they reached a consensus that classroom environment and instr

40、uction domains were rewarded at the nearly same low score. While the planning and preparation domain was considered as the most appreciated part. Therefore, in the ph</p><p>　　From this study, we can conclud

41、e what students witness is only practice of teachers in domain 2 and 3, which are deemed as the least part of teachers’ professional practice. Teachers, parishioners of complex crafts, if provided with safe and respectfu

42、l environment, most teachers (98%) would choose to concentrate their efforts at professional growths in those areas in which they have the greatest needs. </p><p>　　3.4 Comparison </p><p>　　This

43、 study based on the questionnaire above is distinct from the current assessment used in private universities in the following aspects: </p><p>　　Firstly, the study aims to get the self-assessment of bilingua

44、l teachers rather than single scores valued by non-expertise students. Secondly, instead of scoring by individual understanding, the questionnaire showed clear explanations about key concepts to avoid much misunderstandi

45、ng. Since half participants (51%) received teaching training courses and were much possible to understand core concepts. Thirdly, the study focused more on the professional development of teachers to diagnose their wea&l

46、t;/p><p>　　4. Conclusion </p><p>　　Although this study has some limitations in terms of numbers of participants (only 40) and focus on formative assessment, we still can reach some conclusions that

47、 are significantly important for bilingual teachers’ professional development and assessments. </p><p>　　Teaching is a profession and should be treated in a professional way. For understanding of profession,

48、 teachers are deemed as the combination of subject matter expert, didactical expert and pedagogical expert and practice the profession into four domains. Any segregation of teaching only results in misinterpretation of t

49、eaching profession. Valued for formative or summative purpose, teachers should have equal opportunities to exhibit their practical and comprehensive performance. The assessor, on</p><p>　　In developing or re

50、designing local teachers’ evaluation system, we must answer two questions: what do we believe good teaching look like and what are the processes and procedures that will best benefit what we expect our systems to accompl

51、ish. Also, when teachers’ assessment is programmed, bilingual teachers, both individually and collectively, should be valued in a separate way from subject matter teachers while taking the difference between veteran and

52、novice teachers into consideration. </p><p>　　Teachers’ assessment and teachers’ professional development will not accomplish unless they are implemented in a long run. Thus new assessment system and profess

53、ional development systems should be viewed as continuing processes. </p><p>　　References </p><p>　　1. Asayesh G, M.S.: Development for Improving Students Outcomes. J. Staff Development, 13--14 (

54、1993) </p><p>　　2. Colin Baker, S.: Key Issues in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Multilingual Matters Ltd, England (1988) </p><p>　　3. Charlette Danielson & Thomas L. McGreal, S.;Teac

55、her Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice.. Educational Testing Center, Princeton, New Jersey (2000) </p><p>　　4. Douwe Beijaard, Nico Verloop, Jan D. Vermunt, S.: Teacher’s Perceptions of Professional

56、 Identity: an Exploratory Study from a Personal Knowledge Prospective. Teaching and Teachers’ Education (2000) </p><p>　　5. D.W. Carrol, S.: Psychology of Language (fifth edition), Foreign Language Teaching

57、and Research Press & Cambridge University Press(2008) </p><p>　　6. Hargreaves Andy, Fullan Michael, S.: Understanding Teacher Development. Cassell & Teachers College Press, London (1992) </p>

58、<p>　　7. Hoyle E, John P D, S.: Professional Knowledge and Professional Practice. Cassell, London (1995) </p><p>　　8. Jacobiene A. Meirink, Paulien C. Meijer, Nico Verloop, Theo. C.M. Bergen. S.: Unders

59、tanding Teacher Learning in Second Education: The Relations of Teacher Activities to Changed Beliefs about Teaching and Reading. Teaching and Teachers Education (2009) </p><p>　　10. Mary M. Kenndedy, S.: Tea

60、cher Assessment and the Request for Teacher Quality, a Handbook. Jossey-base (2010) </p><p>　　11. Paulien C. Meijer, Nico Verloop, Douwe Beijaard, S.: Exploring Language Teachers’ Practical Knowledge about T

61、eaching Reading Comprehension. Teaching and Teachers’ Education (1999) </p><p>　　12. R. C. Gardner, S.: Social Psychology and Second Language Learning. Edward Arnold, London (1995) </p><p>　　13.