Reconceptualizing language teaching: an in-service teacher education course in uzbekistan

Inter (Intra)-rater reliability. One of the significant challenges in 
performance and direct assessments is inter-rater reliability (between two 
people)/ intra-rater reliability (amongst yourself as an assessor). It is very 
hard to achieve consistency in marking not only between one rater with 
the other, but also among various instances of assessment made by the 
same rater. It appears subjectivity cannot be avoided and we find quite fre-
quently teachers who are quite generous and kind in marking, while others 
are quite harsh and demanding. To mitigate this endless problem, raters 
are usually asked to have benchmarking before they conduct assessment. 
Benchmarking is when two raters are both assigned to check the same 
written work or conduct a spoken examination together. In this case, both 
specialists must agree on a certain score. A third rater might be invited in 
cases when the judgement of the two differ significantly. In McNamara 
(2000, p.58) minimum acceptable inter-rater agreement range from 50%, 
where other 50% are the cases when raters disagree. Much acceptable is 
the case of 80% agreement to 20% disagreement, which can be the result 
of accurate wording or criteria or proper training of the raters. For infor-
mation on the mathematical formulas on how to conduct inter-rater and 
intra-rater reliability, we recommend referring to Bailey (1998).
Informing and Explaining a Score. Very often, in the Uzbekistan con-
text, students tend to ask for the explanation of a score. Arguments over a 
score can be avoided if transparent scoring is in place, which means that 
students need to know how are they assessed and why they are granted 
a certain score. Issues come out from the absence and ambiguity of mark-
ing criteria. Therefore, the primary concern of a rater must be whether the 
granted score is thoroughly considered and whether the necessary proce-
dures have been used.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, subjectively-scored assessment can be very challeng-
ing for a teacher and it is hard to abstain from impressionistic marking. We 
recommend sticking closely to using either a holistic or analytic scoring 
method. However, a teacher must be conscious of ethics in assessment, as 
whatever mark we-teachers settle on might change the course of events in 
the lives of our students. Therefore, assessment is great responsibility. 

---

136
RECONCEPTUALIZING LANGUAGE TEACHING
HOMEWORK TASK FOURTEEN
You now have gone through five sections in the chapter and learnt 
the salient aspects in language assessment and testing. By this time, you 
should have developed ideas regarding what changes you can make in 
your teaching and assessment practices. Based on what you have learnt 
in this chapter and discussions at classes, write an action plan (minimum 1 
page) describing the problematic areas which you are planning to address 
after you complete this in-service education course, provide details of:
• Why you think it is a significant issue
• How you are going to address it; and,
• What is the expected result?
RESOURCES
1. International Language (March, 2000; Minor corrections January, 
2018) Code of Ethics. 
2. Vancouver. Retrieved from 
https://www.iltaonline.com/page/
CodeofEthics
[accessed October 31, 2018]
REFERENCES
1. Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about Language Assessment: Dilem-
mas, Decisions, and Directions. The University of Michigan: Heinle/
Heinle.
2. Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2014). Teaching L2 Composition: Purpose, 
Process, and Practice
. (3rd ed.). New York/London: Routledge.
3. McNamara, T. (2000). Language Testing. UK. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press. 
4. Wesche, M. B. (1983). Communicative testing in a second language. 
The Modern Language Journal, 67
(1), 41-55.

---

137
CHAPTER FOUR: PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF USING COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE